Case Digest (G.R. No. 203984) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Inocencia Yu Dino and her husband doing business under the trade name “Candy Claire Fashion Garments” (petitioners) versus the Court of Appeals and Roman Sio, doing business under the name “Universal Toy Master Manufacturing” (respondents), the spouses Dino engaged respondent Sio under a contract for a piece of work to manufacture 20,000 vinyl frogs and 20,000 vinyl mooseheads at ₱7.00 per piece to be affixed to the petitioners’ shirts. Respondent delivered the items in several batches, with the last delivery on September 28, 1988, and petitioners paid the full purchase price. Thereafter, petitioners discovered hidden defects and returned 29,772 pieces on December 12, 1988, January 11, 1989, and January 17, 1989, demanding a refund of ₱208,404.00, which respondent refused. On July 24, 1989, petitioners filed a collection suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 38. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, awarding the refund, legal interest from July Case Digest (G.R. No. 203984) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties
- Petitioners Inocencia Yu Dino and her husband, doing business as Candy Claire Fashion Garments, manufacturers and sellers of shirts.
- Respondent Roman Sio, part owner and general manager of Universal Toy Master Manufacturing, a manufacturing corporation.
- Contractual Agreement
- Petitioners and Sio entered into a contract for the manufacture of 20,000 vinyl frogs and 20,000 vinyl mooseheads at ₱7.00 per piece, according to approved samples.
- The manufactured items were to be attached to the shirts sold by petitioners.
- Delivery, Payment, and Return of Defective Goods
- Sio delivered the 40,000 pieces in several installments, the last on September 28, 1988.
- Petitioners paid the full purchase price but later returned 29,772 pieces for hidden defects.
- First return: December 12, 1988 (1,720 pieces)
- Second return: January 11, 1989
- Third return: January 17, 1989
- Petitioners demanded a refund of ₱208,404.00, which Sio refused.
- Procedural History
- Petitioners filed a complaint for collection of sum of money on July 24, 1989, in RTC Manila, Branch 38.
- RTC rendered judgment on June 5, 1990, awarding ₱208,404.00 with interest from July 5, 1989, plus ₱20,000.00 attorney’s fees.
- Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on April 30, 1993, affirmed the RTC decision.
- Sio filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the CA, raising prescription. On January 24, 1994, the CA reversed and dismissed the complaint as time-barred.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
- Nature of the action: collection of sum of money or action for breach of warranty?
- Whether the defense of prescription, not raised in the answer, may be considered when the complaint on its face shows the action is time-barred.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)