Week 15 Case 37 NPC 21-122 Flashcards
Instead of availing himself of discovery proceedings during the preliminary conference to seek additional information and documents from Metrobank to substantiate his claims, JBZ merely relied on the
insufficient evidence he submitted with his complaint. Thus, Metrobank cannot be held liable for the violating the DPA.
In this case, JBZ failed not only to allege, but also to submit evidence, that CDR was involved in Metrobank’s supposed violation of the DPA,
either by her direct participation or by allowing the supposed violation to happen through her gross negligence.
Other than this statement, JBZ neither specified nor discussed the provisions of the DPA that CDR supposedly violated. He failed to specify whether she is liable for violating the same provisions of the DPA as Metrobank, or liable for an entirely different violation.
The Commission also cannot award damages to JBZ for the erroneous email from Metrobank regarding the cancellation of another client’s
credit card. While Metrobank sent the wrong email to JBZ, it neither contained personal information of another card holder nor involved JBZ’s personal information. As such, the Commission has no reason to award damages to JBZ.
The judgment has without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate civil, criminal,
or administrative case before any other forum or tribunal, if any.
