Case Digest (G.R. No. 205405) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Atienza v. Golden Ram Engineering Supplies & Equipment Corporation and Bartolome Torres, decided June 28, 2021, petitioner Eduardo Atienza, operator of the passenger vessel MV Ace I plying the Batangas‐Mindoro route, sued respondents Golden Ram Engineering Supplies & Equipment Corporation (GRESEC), a dealer and distributor of vessel engines, and its President and Manager, Bartolome Torres, for breach of warranty. On August 24, 1993, Atienza purchased two MAN Diesel Engines Type D 2840 LE, amounting to ₱3.5 million, under a Proforma Invoice that expressly incorporated a twelve‐month warranty from commissioning, limited to 2,000 hours of operation. The engines were delivered and commissioned in March 1994. On September 26, 1994, the starboard engine suffered a major malfunction due to a split connecting rod. GRESEC’s service engineer, Engr. Raymond Torres, confirmed a factory defect to MAN Diesel Singapore, which promised replacement under warranty, but no action was taken. Ati Case Digest (G.R. No. 205405) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Contract of Sale
- Petitioner Eduardo Atienza operated MV Ace I, a passenger vessel on the Batangas–Mindoro route.
- Respondent Golden Ram Engineering Supplies & Equipment Corporation (GRESEC) was dealer and distributor of engines; its President/Manager was Bartolome T. Torres.
- On August 24, 1993 Atienza purchased two MAN Diesel engines (Type D 2840 LE, 470 HP each) for P3.5 million under a pro forma invoice providing a 12-month (or 18-month/2,000 hours) warranty per “General Conditions of Sale DK.0105.N-12-87, Art. XI.”
- Engine Performance and Malfunction
- The engines were delivered and commissioned by GRESEC in March 1994. During sea trials the starboard engine under-performed (slow acceleration, black smoke).
- On September 26, 1994 the starboard engine broke down (split connecting rod). GRESEC’s engineer, R.R. Torres, diagnosed a factory defect and reported to MAN B&W Diesel Singapore, which promised replacement. GRESEC ignored subsequent demands.
- On October 28, 1994 Atienza sent a demand letter: replace the engine or reimburse losses. GRESEC failed to act, prompting Atienza to file suit on November 16, 1994.
- Procedural History
- In the RTC (Civil Case No. 94-72195), Atienza proved breach of warranty and bad faith. On August 28, 2008 the court ordered GRESEC and Torres solidarily to pay actual damages (P1,600,000), moral damages (P200,000), attorney’s fees and costs (P150,000).
- On appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 92372), the CA (May 31, 2012) affirmed breach of warranty and actual damages but, finding no bad faith, removed moral damages, fees and Torres’s solidarity. Its January 14, 2013 Resolution denied reconsideration.
- Atienza filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s exculpation of Torres and deletion of moral damages and fees.
Issues:
- Whether respondents denied Atienza’s warranty claim in bad faith so as to warrant moral damages and attorney’s fees.
- Whether Bartolome T. Torres is personally and solidarily liable with GRESEC for all damages.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)