Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    8 Francisco V Chemical - Montenegro

    Uploaded by

    Francesca Isabel Montenegro
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Francisco, who was blind, did not exercise the due diligence expected of a reasonable blind person when purchasing diesel fuel from Gregorio Bacsa. While Francisco's blindness did lower the standard of care required, he failed to properly verify Bacsa's identity and authorization from Chemical Bulk Carriers, Inc. (CBCI) to sell their fuel. Francisco relied only on Bacsa's identification card and unofficial receipts instead of obtaining official documentation from CBCI. The Court affirmed the ruling that Francisco must pay CBCI for the diesel fuel since the sales were not actually authorized by CBCI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    8 Francisco V Chemical - Montenegro

    Uploaded by

    Francesca Isabel Montenegro
    138 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Francisco, who was blind, did not exercise the due diligence expected of a reasonable blind person when purchasing diesel fuel from Gregorio Bacsa. While Francisco's blindness did lower the standard of care required, he failed to properly verify Bacsa's identity and authorization from Chemical Bulk Carriers, Inc. (CBCI) to sell their fuel. Francisco relied only on Bacsa's identification card and unofficial receipts instead of obtaining official documentation from CBCI. The Court affirmed the ruling that Francisco must pay CBCI for the diesel fuel since the sales were not actually authorized by CBCI.

    Original Description:

    n

    Original Title

    8 Francisco v Chemical_Montenegro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Francisco, who was blind, did not exercise the due diligence expected of a reasonable blind person when purchasing diesel fuel from Gregorio Bacsa. While Francisco's blindness did lower the standard of care required, he failed to properly verify Bacsa's identity and authorization from Chemical Bulk Carriers, Inc. (CBCI) to sell their fuel. Francisco relied only on Bacsa's identification card and unofficial receipts instead of obtaining official documentation from CBCI. The Court affirmed the ruling that Francisco must pay CBCI for the diesel fuel since the sales were not actually authorized by CBCI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    138 views2 pages

    8 Francisco V Chemical - Montenegro

    Uploaded by

    Francesca Isabel Montenegro
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Francisco, who was blind, did not exercise the due diligence expected of a reasonable blind person when purchasing diesel fuel from Gregorio Bacsa. While Francisco's blindness did lower the standard of care required, he failed to properly verify Bacsa's identity and authorization from Chemical Bulk Carriers, Inc. (CBCI) to sell their fuel. Francisco relied only on Bacsa's identification card and unofficial receipts instead of obtaining official documentation from CBCI. The Court affirmed the ruling that Francisco must pay CBCI for the diesel fuel since the sales were not actually authorized by CBCI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    8. Francisco vs. Chemical Bulk Carriers, Inc.

    ,
    G.R. No. 193577, September 9, 2011 RTC: Francisco was not liable for damages in favor of CBCI because the 17 deliveries were
    By: Kate covered by original and genuine invoices. The trial court declared that Bacsa, as confidential
    Topic: Physical Handicap in Determining the Required Degree of Care secretary of Inawat, was CBCI’s authorized representative who received Francisco’s full
    Petitioners: Antonio Francisco, Substituted By His Heirs: Nelia E.S. Francisco, Emilia F. Bertiz, payment for the diesel fuel
    Rebecca E.S. Francisco, Antonio E.S. Francisco, Jr., Socorro F. Fontanilla, And Jovito E.S. CA: Set aside the trial court’s Decision and ruled that Bacsa’s act of selling the diesel fuel to
    Francisco Francisco was his personal act and, even if Bacsa connived with Inawat, the sale does not
    Respondents: Chemical Bulk Carriers, Inc. bind CBCI. The Court of Appeals declared that since Francisco had been in the business of
    Ponente: J. Carpio
    selling petroleum products for a considerable number of years, his blindness was not a
    hindrance for him to transact business with other people. With his condition and experience,
    DOCTRINE: One who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a
    Francisco should have verified whether CBCI was indeed selling diesel fuel and if it had given
    reasonably careful person who has the same physical disability would use. Physical handicaps
    Bacsa authority to do so.
    and infirmities, such as blindness or deafness, are treated as part of the circumstances under
    which a reasonable person must act. Thus, the standard of conduct for a blind person
    Hence, this rule 45 petition. Heirs of Francico argue that since Francisco was blind, the
    becomes that of a reasonable person who is blind.
    standard of conduct that was required of him was that of a reasonable person under like
    disability
    FACTS:
     Antonio Francisco has been the owner and manager of a Caltex station in Teresa,
    ISSUE: Whether Francisco exercised the required diligence of a blind person in the conduct of
    Rizal since 1965
     In 1978, he completely lost his eyesight due to sickness. his business
     In 1993 four persons, including Gregorio Bacsa, came to Francisco’s Caltex station
    and introduced themselves as employees of CBCI. RULING:
     Bacsa introduced himself as a radio operator and confidential secretary of a certain
    Mr. Inawat, CBCI’s manager for operations. NO. Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is required by the nature of the
     Bacsa offered to sell to Francisco a certain quantity of CBCI’s diesel fuel at a lower obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time and place. The most
    price. common standard of conduct is that of a good father of a family or that of a reasonably
     Francisco was hesitant to buy the fuel, thinking that the same are stolen property. prudent person. To determine the diligence which must be required of all persons, we use as
    He then asked his son to read and verify the documents which Basca would basis the abstract average standard corresponding to a normal orderly person.
    present.
     To verify the authority of Bacsa, he asked him to present his identification card.
    However, one who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a
    Francisco then agreed to the sale.
     Francisco imposed the following conditions for the purchase: (1) that Petron reasonably careful person who has the same physical disability would use. Physical handicaps
    Corporation (Petron) should deliver the diesel fuel to Francisco at his business and infirmities, such as blindness or deafness, are treated as part of the circumstances under
    address which should be properly indicated in Petron’s invoice; (2) that the delivery which a reasonable person must act. Thus, the standard of conduct for a blind person
    tank is sealed; and (3) that Bacsa should issue a separate receipt to Francisco. becomes that of a reasonable person who is blind.
     The deliveries started on 5 April 1993 and lasted for ten months, or up to 25
    January 1994. There were 17 deliveries to Francisco and all his conditions were We note that Francisco, despite being blind, had been managing and operating the Caltex
    complied with.
    station for 15 years and this was not a hindrance for him to transact business until this time.
     The transaction was covered with receipts which were typewritten on a half sheet
    In this instance, however, we rule that Francisco failed to exercise the standard of conduct
    of plain bond paper to remove doubts as to Bacsa’s legitimacy as a seller.
     It turned out that Bacsa was not authoritzed by CBCI to sell the diesel fuel. expected of a reasonable person who is blind.
     In February 1996, CBCI sent a demand letter to Francisco regarding the diesel fuel
    delivered to him but which had been paid for by CBCI. First, Francisco merely relied on the identification card of Bacsa to determine if he was
     CBCI demanded that Francisco pay CBCI P1,053,527 for the diesel fuel or CBCI authorized by CBCI. Francisco did not do any other background check on the identity and
    would file a complaint against him in court. authority of Bacsa.
     Francisco rejected CBCI’s demand.
    Second, Francisco already expressed his misgivings about the diesel fuel, fearing that they
    might be stolen property, yet he did not verify with CBCI the authority of Bacsa to sell the
    diesel fuel.
    Third, Francisco relied on the receipts issued by Bacsa which were typewritten on a half sheet
    of plain bond paper. If Francisco exercised reasonable diligence, he should have asked for an
    official receipt issued by CBCI.
    Fourth, the delivery to Francisco, as indicated in Petron’s invoice, does not show that CBCI
    authorized Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel to Francisco. Clearly, Francisco failed to exercise the
    standard of conduct expected of a reasonable person who is blind

    Moreover, it is clear that Bacsa was not the owner of the diesel fuel. Francisco was aware of
    this but he claimed that Bacsa was authorized by CBCI to sell the diesel fuel. However,
    Francisco’s claim that Bacsa was authorized is not supported by any evidence except his self-
    serving testimony.

    DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
    WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 31 May 2010 Decision and 31 August
    2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy