Case Digest (G.R. No. 93023)
Facts:
In Regina Q. Alba, Joined by Her Husband, Rudolfo D. Alba, vs. Nida Arollado, Joined by Her Husband, Pedro Arollado, Jr., the petitioners Regina Q. Alba and her husband are engaged in the retail of crude oil and petroleum products through Libra Fishing. Beginning in 2000, respondent Nida Arollado purchased petroleum products on credit, issuing three checks—dated July 26, 2000 (P60,000), November 12, 2002 (P44,092), and November 27, 2002 (P66,168.50)—all dishonored by their respective drawee banks. After unsuccessful extrajudicial demands on May 15, 2013, Regina filed a complaint for sum of money on June 4, 2013 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC rendered judgment on August 18, 2014 awarding P170,260.50 for the dishonored checks, plus attorney’s fees and costs, but dismissed all other claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in Cebu City, by Decision dated September 8, 2017, reversed the RTC, holding that Regina’s action had prescribed under the Civil Code’s six-yCase Digest (G.R. No. 93023)
Facts:
- Parties and Transaction
- Regina Q. Alba, sole proprietor of Libra Fishing, sold crude oil and petroleum products on credit.
- Nida Arollado purchased on credit between July 26, 2000 and November 27, 2002, issuing three checks which were dishonored by the drawee banks.
- On May 15, 2013, Regina made an extrajudicial demand for payment; on June 4, 2013, she filed a complaint for sum of money.
- Judicial Proceedings
- RTC Decision (Aug 18, 2014): Granted Regina’s claim but limited recovery to the total of the dishonored checks (₱170,260.50), plus ₱20,000 attorney’s fees and costs.
- CA Decision (Sept 8, 2017): Reversed the RTC, holding the action had prescribed under the six-year period for oral contracts; dismissed the complaint.
- CA Resolution (Jan 22, 2018): Denied Regina’s motion for reconsideration. Regina filed a petition for review under Rule 45.
Issues:
- From what date must the prescriptive period for an action on an oral contract be reckoned?
- Do partial payments or an extrajudicial demand interrupt the running of that prescriptive period?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)