Iloilo small-claims court denies ₱2,400 blender refund, but finds misuse unproved

A small-claims court in Iloilo City denied Rina Dalisay’s request for a ₱2,400 refund in exchange for returning a blender she said stopped during her first smoothie. The court dismissed the complaint because the available evidence did not sufficiently establish her entitlement to repayment. It ordered neither payment nor return of the appliance.

The result did not vindicate seller Joel Ventura’s explanation that improper use caused the failure. The court found that neither Dalisay’s account of failure during ordinary use nor Ventura’s allegation of customer-caused damage had been adequately proved.

The purchase receipt established the price and recorded that the blender had been tested at sale, with Dalisay’s signature beside that notation. But a successful demonstration did not establish that the appliance was free of every later defect. Nor did the receipt prove misuse or the circumstances of the subsequent failure.

Dalisay’s consistent account of a first-use breakdown and same-evening complaint carried some weight. The decisive gap was corroboration: the hearing record contained no produced message, repair record, inspection or other independent evidence confirming the report or explaining the malfunction. Repeated copies of the same receipt added no independent support.

Ventura faced a separate evidentiary burden for his moisture explanation. Although his submissions referred to a photograph, no separate photo exhibit was presented for assessment. The record did not establish the moisture’s source or a causal connection to the blender stopping. A possible explanation was not proof that Dalisay caused the damage.

The court also distinguished proof of the amount paid from proof of a right to repayment. It regarded the proposed refund-for-return arrangement as narrow and proportionate, but found the underlying harm insufficiently established. Uncertainty about whether Ventura had a fair opportunity to repair the unit added to the difficulty; the judgment did not impose a universal requirement to request repairs.

Dalisay argued that her prompt complaint supported her account of failure during ordinary use. She accepted that it did not identify the cause, but maintained that exterior moisture likewise did not show what happened inside the appliance.

Ventura’s side relied on the demonstration and signed testing notation, arguing that Dalisay had not established a pre-existing problem. It also suggested that moisture indicated improper handling and sought dismissal. The court accepted neither the demonstration as proof against every possible defect nor the moisture allegation as an established cause.

The dispute followed a ₱2,400 blender purchase and a demonstration before Dalisay took it home. She said it stopped that evening while she made her first smoothie and that she promptly asked to return it.

The judgment leaves the cause of the malfunction unresolved. Its outcome turns on the evidence presented, not a finding that the buyer mishandled the blender or that the seller supplied a defect-free appliance.