DE GUZMAN v TOYOTA [G.R. No. 141480. November 29, 2006.] CARLOS B. DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. TOYOTA CUBAO,
INC., respondent.
FACTS:
On November 27, 1997, petitioner purchased from respondent a brand new white Toyota Hi-Lux 2.4 SS double cab motor vehicle, 1996 model, in the amount of P508,000. Petitioner made a down payment of P152,400, leaving a balance of P355,600 which was payable in 36 months with 54% interest. The vehicle was delivered to petitioner two days later. On October 18, 1998 (approximately 20 days after), petitioner demanded the replacement of the engine of the vehicle because it developed a crack after traversing Marcos Highway during a heavy rain. Last 18 October 1998, after only 12,000 kilometers of use, the vehicle's engine cracked. Although it was previously driven through a heavy rain, it didn't pass through flooded streets high enough to stop sturdy and resistant vehicles. Besides, vehicles of this class are advertised as being capable of being driven on flooded areas or rugged terrain.Petitioner asserted that respondent should replace the engine with a new one based on an implied warranty. Respondent countered that the alleged damage on the engine was not covered by a warranty.
On April 20, 1999 (19 months from delivery), petitioner filed a complaint for damages.
Defense:
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, the petitioner's cause of action had prescribed as the case was filed more than six months from the date the vehicle was sold and/or delivered.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: granted respondent's motion and dismissed the complaint. The Court agrees with the plaintiff's counsel that the subject pick- up is a consumer product because it is used for personal, family or agricultural purposes, contrary to defendant counsel's claim that it is not because it is a non-consumable item.
Since no warranty card or agreement was attached to the complaint, the contract of sale of the subject pick-up carried an implied warranty that it was free from any hidden faults or defects, or any charge or encumbrance not declared or known to the buyer. The prescriptive period thereof is six (6) months under the Civil Code (Art. 1571).
FACTS:
On November 27, 1997, petitioner purchased from respondent a brand new white Toyota Hi-Lux 2.4 SS double cab motor vehicle, 1996 model, in the amount of P508,000. Petitioner made a down payment of P152,400, leaving a balance of P355,600 which was payable in 36 months with 54% interest. The vehicle was delivered to petitioner two days later. On October 18, 1998 (approximately 20 days after), petitioner demanded the replacement of the engine of the vehicle because it developed a crack after traversing Marcos Highway during a heavy rain. Last 18 October 1998, after only 12,000 kilometers of use, the vehicle's engine cracked. Although it was previously driven through a heavy rain, it didn't pass through flooded streets high enough to stop sturdy and resistant vehicles. Besides, vehicles of this class are advertised as being capable of being driven on flooded areas or rugged terrain.Petitioner asserted that respondent should replace the engine with a new one based on an implied warranty. Respondent countered that the alleged damage on the engine was not covered by a warranty.
On April 20, 1999 (19 months from delivery), petitioner filed a complaint for damages.
Defense:
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, the petitioner's cause of action had prescribed as the case was filed more than six months from the date the vehicle was sold and/or delivered.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: granted respondent's motion and dismissed the complaint. The Court agrees with the plaintiff's counsel that the subject pick- up is a consumer product because it is used for personal, family or agricultural purposes, contrary to defendant counsel's claim that it is not because it is a non-consumable item.
Since no warranty card or agreement was attached to the complaint, the contract of sale of the subject pick-up carried an implied warranty that it was free from any hidden faults or defects, or any charge or encumbrance not declared or known to the buyer. The prescriptive period thereof is six (6) months under the Civil Code (Art. 1571).
ISSUE:
Whether the action has prescribed
RULING:
Yes.
Under Article 1599 of the Civil Code, once an express warranty is breached, the buyer can accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for damages. In the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the respondent, as in this case, the allegations in petitioner's complaint for damages were clearly anchored on the enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects, i.e., that the engine of the vehicle which respondent had sold to him was not defective. By filing this case, petitioner wants to hold respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine. Such being the case, petitioner should have exercised this right within six months from the delivery of the thing sold. 7 Since petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999, or more than nineteen months counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the delivery of the motor vehicle), his cause of action had become time-barred.
Consequently, even if the complaint is made to fall under the Republic Act No. 7394, the same should still be dismissed since the prescriptive period for implied warranty thereunder, which is one year, had likewise lapsed.
Whether the action has prescribed
RULING:
Yes.
Under Article 1599 of the Civil Code, once an express warranty is breached, the buyer can accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for damages. In the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the respondent, as in this case, the allegations in petitioner's complaint for damages were clearly anchored on the enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects, i.e., that the engine of the vehicle which respondent had sold to him was not defective. By filing this case, petitioner wants to hold respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine. Such being the case, petitioner should have exercised this right within six months from the delivery of the thing sold. 7 Since petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999, or more than nineteen months counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the delivery of the motor vehicle), his cause of action had become time-barred.
Consequently, even if the complaint is made to fall under the Republic Act No. 7394, the same should still be dismissed since the prescriptive period for implied warranty thereunder, which is one year, had likewise lapsed.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment