Case Digest (G. R. No. 10910)
Facts:
The Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Antonio Lejano, G.R. No. 10910, January 16, 1959, Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellee Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. sold a new Hash sedan to defendant-appellant Antonio Lejano on May 22, 1941, and Lejano executed a promissory note the same day for P2,476.32 payable in installments, the last due May 22, 1943. Plaintiff's records (Exhibits C and D) showed that, despite several payments, an unpaid balance of P1,658.10 remained as of December 8, 1941, and plaintiff sent written demands (Exhibits E, F and G) asking for payment.
The Municipal Court of the City of Manila entered judgment ordering defendant to pay P1,658.10 plus interest from December 9, 1951 at 12% per annum; defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) where a trial de novo was held. At the CFI, defendant testified he did not receive the demand letters, that Exhibits A and B did not express the true intention of the parties, and that the car had been confiscated by the Japanese during the occupation. The CFI found plaintiff’s evidence persuasive, but held that because the obligation was contracted before the war defendant should not be charged interest; it rendered judgment on March 2, 1956 ordering payment of P1,658.10 and costs.
Before the CFI defendant had filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription (denied September 14, 1955) and later alleged that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint sought the balance plus 25% attorney’s fees, which would have placed the sum beyond the Municipal Court’s monetary jurisdiction. The CFI, invoking Section 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, proceeded to try the case on the merits because the parties filed pleadings and went to trial without timely objection to jurisdiction. On prescription, the CFI (and subsequently the Court) relied on...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in exercising original jurisdiction to try and decide the case on the merits despite the Municipal Court's possible lack of jurisdiction?
- Is plaintiff’s action barred by prescription, or did the debt moratorium law suspend the running of the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)