Merchant’s Due Diligence Prevails: Ensuring Payment Despite Credit Card Fraud

TLDR: Philippine jurisprudence affirms that merchants who diligently comply with credit card transaction agreements are entitled to payment, even if fraudulent transactions occur. This case highlights that the burden of proving merchant negligence and justifying chargebacks rests heavily on credit card companies.

AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, AND M R TRAVEL SERVICES INC., G.R. No. 128899, June 08, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a local travel agency diligently processing credit card transactions, only to have a major credit card company refuse payment, citing fraud. This was the reality for M R Travel Services, Inc., bringing to the forefront a crucial question in Philippine commercial law: who bears the brunt of credit card fraud – the merchant or the credit card company? This Supreme Court case, American Express International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, provides a definitive answer, underscoring the importance of contractual compliance and due diligence in credit card transactions. At the heart of the dispute was American Express’s (AMEXCO) refusal to honor charges from M R Travel, claiming discrepancies and fraudulent activity. However, the Supreme Court sided with the travel agency, reinforcing protections for businesses against unwarranted chargebacks when they have acted in good faith and followed agreed-upon procedures.

LEGAL CONTEXT: CONTRACTS, EVIDENCE, AND DUE DILIGENCE

Philippine contract law, primarily governed by the Civil Code, dictates that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Article 1159 of the Civil Code is central to this principle, stating, “Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.” This case hinges on the “Travel Agreement” between AMEXCO and M R Travel, making its terms and conditions legally binding.

Evidence law also plays a vital role. The burden of proof generally lies with the party making an allegation. In this instance, AMEXCO, alleging fraud and breach of contract by M R Travel, carried the responsibility to present convincing evidence. Hearsay evidence, or testimony based on second-hand information, is generally inadmissible, although exceptions exist. One exception is when the statement itself, regardless of its truth, is relevant – for example, to prove that a statement was made. However, even admissible hearsay does not automatically equate to proof of the matter asserted.

Furthermore, the concept of due diligence is critical in commercial transactions. Merchants are expected to exercise reasonable care in verifying cardholder identities and following transaction protocols. However, the standard of diligence is one of a good father of a family – ordinary diligence – unless the law or contract stipulates otherwise. The case explores whether M R Travel exercised sufficient diligence in its credit card transactions, and whether any perceived negligence was the proximate cause of the alleged fraud.

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE DISPUTE AND ITS RESOLUTION

The narrative unfolds with AMEXCO and M R Travel entering into a “Travel Agreement” in 1986. This agreement allowed AMEXCO cardholders to purchase travel services from M R Travel. Key conditions included card presentation before expiration, signature verification, and AMEXCO’s limited liability of $100 unless prior authorization was obtained for larger amounts. Crucially, M R Travel was required to submit charge record forms weekly, and AMEXCO would not be liable for charges submitted beyond ten days from the transaction date.

In December 1987, M R Travel submitted five charge record forms totaling P145,524.64. AMEXCO refused to pay, citing missing transaction dates, alleged fraudulent transactions, signature discrepancies for one cardholder (John Demoss), and lack of approval code for another (Carl McCabe). AMEXCO unilaterally terminated the agreement in January 1988, leading M R Travel to file a collection suit.

The trial court initially sided with AMEXCO, finding that M R Travel failed to secure prior authorization for charges exceeding $100, omitted transaction dates, failed to verify cardholder identities (as tickets were not in cardholder names), and that signatures were forged on allegedly lost/stolen cards. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding substantial compliance by M R Travel.

The Supreme Court then reviewed the case, focusing on whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court. The Supreme Court highlighted a crucial point of conflicting factual findings between the lower courts, justifying a re-examination of evidence. AMEXCO heavily relied on the testimony of its fraud analyst, Miguel Licarte, who claimed cardholders denied the transactions and were abroad at the time.

However, the Supreme Court scrutinized Licarte’s testimony, noting that while admissible to prove the statements were made, it was insufficient to prove the truth of the cardholders’ claims of fraud or being abroad. The Court pointed out:

“In the instant case, the testimony of Licarte underscored his conversations with the cardholders and their respective denials which simply established that AMEXCO verified the transactions and that Licarte was told that the cardholders did not use their cards, as they were outside of the Philippines. Whether the cardholders indeed used their cards or were in fact out of the country was, however, never ascertained. The cardholders themselves were never presented before the trial court. Hence, despite admission of the testimony of Licarte the same still does not sufficiently establish the truth of any of the claims of AMEXCO.”

The Court emphasized that AMEXCO failed to present the cardholders themselves or provide concrete proof of forgery, such as handwriting analysis. Regarding the missing dates, the Court found this to be a non-fatal omission, noting Licarte’s testimony that dates were for cardholder billing, not merchant billing. The Court reasoned that AMEXCO could still verify transactions through other means.

Finally, on the issue of negligence, the Supreme Court concurred with the Court of Appeals that M R Travel had exercised ordinary diligence in verifying cardholder identities and securing authorizations, following AMEXCO’s prescribed procedures. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ordering AMEXCO to pay M R Travel for the charges.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR BUSINESS FROM UNFAIR CHARGEBACKS

This case offers significant practical guidance for businesses in the Philippines that accept credit card payments. It clarifies the extent of merchant liability in fraudulent transactions and underscores the importance of adhering to contractual agreements and practicing due diligence.

Firstly, contractual compliance is paramount. Merchants must meticulously follow all procedures outlined in their agreements with credit card companies, including verification protocols, authorization processes, and documentation requirements. While minor omissions, like missing dates in this case, may not be fatal, consistent adherence to all stipulations strengthens a merchant’s position in case of disputes.

Secondly, due diligence must be exercised, but reasonableness prevails. Merchants are not expected to be fraud experts or detectives. Ordinary diligence in verifying cardholder identity and transaction legitimacy is sufficient. Following standard verification procedures and authorization protocols, as M R Travel did, demonstrates reasonable care.

Thirdly, the burden of proof lies with the credit card company. If a credit card company seeks to deny payment based on fraud or merchant negligence, it must present clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations or unsubstantiated claims are insufficient. This case highlights the evidentiary burden on credit card companies to prove their claims.

Key Lessons for Merchants:

• Know Your Agreements: Thoroughly understand your merchant agreements with credit card companies, paying close attention to transaction procedures and liability clauses.
• Implement Verification Protocols: Establish and consistently follow reasonable procedures for verifying cardholder identity and transaction legitimacy.
• Document Everything: Maintain detailed records of all transactions, authorizations, and verification steps taken.
• Seek Clarification: If unsure about any procedure or requirement, seek clarification from the credit card company in writing.
• Understand Liability Limits: Be aware of any liability limits stipulated in your agreements and ensure compliance to stay within those limits.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: What is merchant liability in credit card fraud in the Philippines?

A: Merchant liability is not absolute. Philippine law, as illustrated in this case, protects merchants who exercise due diligence and comply with their agreements. Merchants are generally liable if fraud results from their negligence or failure to follow agreed procedures. However, if a merchant acts diligently, the credit card company often bears the primary risk of fraud.

Q2: What constitutes “due diligence” for merchants in credit card transactions?

A: Due diligence is ordinary diligence – the care a good father of a family would exercise. This includes verifying signatures, checking card expiry dates, obtaining authorization codes when required, and reasonably confirming cardholder identity, often through ID presentation, as per standard practices.

Q3: What if transaction dates are missing on charge slips? Does this automatically invalidate a charge?

A: Not necessarily. As this case shows, missing dates alone are not fatal if the merchant has otherwise complied with the agreement. Credit card companies often have other means to verify transactions. The key is substantial compliance with the core obligations.

Q4: Who has the burden of proving credit card fraud in disputes between merchants and credit card companies?

A: The credit card company alleging fraud or merchant negligence bears the burden of proof. They must present convincing evidence to support their claims, not just mere allegations.

Q5: What type of evidence is needed to prove credit card fraud or forgery in these cases?

A: Clear, positive, and convincing evidence is required. Hearsay testimony alone is often insufficient to prove fraud. Presenting cardholders as witnesses, handwriting analysis by experts to prove forgery, or concrete evidence of stolen/lost cards and timely reporting are stronger forms of evidence.

Q6: If a credit card company doesn’t notify a merchant about a card cancellation, is the merchant still liable for charges on that card?

A: Generally, no. Agreements often require credit card companies to notify merchants of card cancellations. Without notification, merchants are typically entitled to honor the card and expect payment for valid transactions, provided they follow other procedures.

ASG Law specializes in Commercial Law and Civil Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.