Title
Co vs. Acosta
Case
G.R. No. 64591
Decision Date
Jan 17, 1985
The court annulled the payment order against Rufino Co, finding that the dismissal of charges against PEPSI also released him from liability due to admissions and waivers by the respondents.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 64591)

Facts:

  • Rufino Co is the petitioner, while Hon. Eficio B. Acosta (Presiding Judge, RTC Branch CLV, Pasig), Refrigeration Industries, Inc. (RII), and Delta Motors Corporation are the respondents.
  • On November 20, 1979, PEPSI issued three purchase orders to CTC Appliance Center, owned by Rufino Co, for 12,000 refrigerators valued at P35,322,900.00.
  • Rufino Co assigned his rights in these orders to RII on November 21, 1979, through a formal deed of assignment.
  • On March 9, 1981, PEPSI informed RII that it did not recognize the assignment.
  • Despite this, RII delivered and was paid for 10,000 units.
  • PEPSI requested an additional 1,000 units on March 18, 1981, which RII delivered from March 23 to May 21, 1981, totaling P2,907,535.00.
  • RII sent demand letters to PEPSI, which were refused, leading RII to demand payment from Rufino Co on July 8, 1981, but he also refused.
  • RII and Delta Motors filed Civil Case No. 42815 against PEPSI and Rufino Co on September 10, 1981.
  • The court dismissed the case against PEPSI on November 26, 1981, upon RII's ex-parte motion.
  • RII filed a motion to declare Rufino Co in default on November 19, 1982, which the court granted, allowing RII to present evidence ex-parte.
  • On March 9, 1983, the court ruled in favor of RII and Delta Motors, ordering Rufino Co to pay P2,907,535.00 plus interest and fees.
  • Rufino Co's "Petition for Relief from Judgment" filed on April 12, 1983, was denied, leading to a writ of execution against his properties.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rufino Co, granting the petition and annulling the RTC proceedings following the dismissal of the complaint against PEPSI.
  • The Court ordered that the effects of the dismissal be extended...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court determined that both Rufino Co and PEPSI were indispensable parties in the case, as they were involved in a common cause of action.
  • The dismissal of the case against PEPSI without notifying Rufino Co was improper, denying him the chance to defend himself.
  • Citing Lim Tanhu v. Hon. Ramolete, the Court emphasized that the dismissal...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.