G.R. No. 174269 - Pantaleon Vs AmEx (2009)

G.R. No.
174269
PANTALEON v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
FACTS:
The petitioner (Pantaleon) and his family, joined an escorted tour of

Western Europe. In Coster Diamond House, Amsterdam, Mrs. Pantaleon
(wife) was about to bought a 2.5 karat diamond brilliant cut, a pendant and
a chain, all of which totaled U.S. $13,826.00. To pay these purchases,
around 9:15am, Pantaleon presented his American Express Credit Card
together with his passport. By 9:40am, Pantaleon was already worried
about further inconveniencing the tour group, he asked the store clerk to
cancel the sale. the store manager though asked him to wait a few more
minutes. Around 10:00am (around 45 minutes after Pantaleon had
presented his AmexCard), Coster decided to release the items even
without American Express International, Inc.’s (herein respondent, Amex
for brevity) approval of the purchase. This was 30 minutes after the tour
group was supposed to have left the store. The spouses Pantelon returned.
Their offers of apology were met by their tourmates with stony silence. The
tour group’s visible irritation was aggravated when the tour guide
announced that the city tour of Amsterdam was to be canceled due to lack
of remaing time. Mrs. Pantaleon ended up weeping. After the star-crossed
tour had ended, the Pantaleon family proceeded to the United States
before returning to Manila. While in the United States, Pantaleon continued
to use his AmEx card, several times without hassle or delay, but with two
other incidents similar to the Amsterdam brouhaha.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Amex was in default or mora.

2. Whether Amex (Credit Card Company) is in mora solvendi or in mora
accipiendi.
HELD:
Yes. The Court is convinced that Amex’s delay constituted breach of its
contractual obligation to act on his use of the card abroad “with special
handling.:
Notwithstanding the popular notion that credit card purchases are approved
“WITHIN SECONDS,” there really is no strict, legally determinative point of
demarcation on how long must it take for a credit car company to approve
or disapprove a customer’s purchase, much less one specifically
contracted upon by the parties. yet this is one of those instances when
“you’d know it what you’d see it,” and one hour appears to be an awfully
long, patently unreasonable length of time to approve or disapprove a
credit card purchases. It is long enough time for the customer to walk to a
bank a kilometer away, withdraw money over the counter, and return to the
store.
The Credit Authorization System (CAS) record on the Amsterdam
transaction shows how Amexco Netherlands viewed the delay as unusually
frustrating. In sequence expressed in Phoenix time from 01:20 when the
charge purchased was referred for authorization:
01:22 – the authorization is referred to manila Amexco.

01:32 – Netherlands gives information that the identification of the card
member has been presented and he is buying jewelries worth US $13,826
01:33 – Netherlands asks “How long will this take?”
02:08 – Netherlands is still asking “How long will this take?”
The Amex has a right to verify whether the credit it is extending upon on a
particular purchase was indeed contracted by the cardholder, and that the
cardholder is within his means to make such transaction. The culpable
failure of respondent herein is not the failure to timely approve petitioner’s
purchase, but the more elemental failure to timely act on the same, whether
favorably or unfavorably. Even assuming the respondent’s credit
authorizers did not have sufficient basis on hand to make a judgment, we
see no reason why Amex could not have promptly informed petitioner the
reason forthe delay, and duly advised him that resolving the same could
take some time. In that way, petitioner would have had informed basis on
whether or not to pursue the transaction at Coster, given the attending
circumstances. instead, Pantaleon was left uncomfortably dangling in the
chilly autumn winds in a foreign land and soon forced to confront the wrath
of foreign folk. The delay committed by Amex was clearly attended by
unjustified neglect and bad faith, since it alleges to have consumed more
than one hour to simply go over Pantaleon’s pas credit history with Amex,
his payment record and his credit and bank references, when all such data
are already stored and readily available from its computer. There is nothing
in Pantaleon’s billing history that would warrant the imprudent suspension
of action by Amex in processing the purchase.
Amex is in mora solvendi. Generally, the relationship between a credit card
provided and its card holder is that of creditor-debtore, with the card
company as a the creditor extending loans and credit to the card holder,
who as debtor is obliged to repay the creditor. The relationship already
takes exception to the general rule that as between a bank and its
depositors, the bank is deemed as the debtor while the depositor is
considered as the creditor. In the present case, we should shift
perspectives and again see the credit card company as the debtor/obligor,
insofar as it has the obligation to the customer as creditor/obligee to act
promptly on its purchases on credit.
If there was delay on the part of Amex in its normal role as creditor to the
cardholder, such delay would not have been in acceptance of the
performance of the debtor’s obligation (i.e., the repayment of the debt), but
it would be delay in the extension of the credit in the first place. Such delay
would not fall under mora accipiendi, which contemplates that the
obligation of the debtor, such as the actual purchases on credit has already
been instituted. The establishment of the debt itself (purchases on credit of
the jewelry) had not yet been perfected, as it remained pending the
approval or consent of the credit card company.

G.R. No. 174269 - Pantaleon Vs AmEx (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 174269 - Pantaleon Vs AmEx (2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 174269 - Pantaleon Vs AmEx (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

The petitioner (Pantaleon) and his family, joined an escorted tour of

1. Whether or not Amex was in default or mora.

01:22 – the authorization is referred to manila Amexco.

You might also like