G.R. No. 116013 - Soco vs. Court of Appeals

On December 18, 1995, E. M. Morales & Associates filed a complaint with the RTC, Branch 56, Makati City, for a sum of money based on an oral contract against Pablo R. Antonio, Jr. and Design Consultancy, Inc. (Civil Case No. 95-1796).
Petitioner Pablo R. Antonio, Jr. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on two grounds:

On September 30, 1996, respondent filed an Amended Complaint, attaching the required certificate of non-forum shopping.
The RTC admitted the amended complaint and denied petitioner’s earlier motion to dismiss.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied.

Feeling the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 59309 (the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals) would be indefinite, respondent filed a motion to dismiss his complaint with the RTC.
On August 1, 2001, the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 95-1796 without prejudice pursuant to Section 2, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On August 3, 2001, respondent filed a manifestation with the Court of Appeals regarding the dismissal; however, it was not acted upon until August 27, 2002, when the Court of Appeals directed petitioner to comment on the manifestation.
Petitioner’s comment was filed on September 17, 2002.

On September 23, 2002, respondent filed a new complaint for the collection of a sum of money at the Quezon City RTC (Civil Case No. Q-02-47835).
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on the ground of prescription based on the six-year limitation provided by Article 1145 of the Civil Code.

Petitioner argued that the period from August 14, 1995 (date of the last letter of demand) to September 23, 2002 exceeded the prescribed six years.
He contended that the prior Civil Case No. 95-1796 did not interrupt the running of the prescription period.

The RTC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80001) contesting the denial of his motion to dismiss on prescription grounds.
On June 11, 2004, the Court of Appeals issued a decision dismissing the petition raised in CA-G.R. SP No. 59309.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied in a Resolution dated September 21, 2004.
The sole issue raised in the present petition was whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription.
Whether the filing of the new complaint in Civil Case No. Q-02-47835 by respondent is barred by the statute of limitations considering the lapse of more than six years from the receipt of the last letter of demand.
Whether the previous dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-1796, although without prejudice, should be considered to have interrupted the running of the period prescribed by the Civil Code for actions based on oral contracts.