Case Digest (G.R. No. 73913)
Facts:
Jerry T. Moles v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Mariano M. Diolosa, G.R. No. 73913, January 31, 1989, the Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jerry T. Moles sued private respondent Mariano M. Diolosa in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (Branch IV, Bacolod City) on May 17, 1978 for rescission of contract with damages, alleging the linotype machine he had bought was defective and unfit for its intended purpose.Respondent moved to dismiss for improper venue, relying on a printed Sales Invoice No. 075A dated April 23, 1977 which contained a printed stipulation that "all judicial actions arising from this contract shall be instituted in the City of Iloilo." The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated June 23, 1978 and likewise denied reconsideration. Respondent then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 49078) to prevent the trial court from proceeding; that petition was dismissed by resolution dated February 7, 1979 (final March 15, 1979). Respondent thereafter answered and the case proceeded to trial.
The underlying transaction: petitioner inspected two secondhand linotype machines at respondent’s Diolosa Publishing House in Iloilo and agreed to buy Model 14. A pro forma invoice dated April 23, 1977 showing P50,000 was signed by petitioner to facilitate a DBP loan application; the agreed selling price between parties was P40,000 (extra P10,000 intended for new matrices). The machine was delivered and installed at petitioner’s Bacolod premises between April and May 1977; respondent’s employee stayed to train petitioner’s staff. Respondent later issued a certification (Exhibit C) warranting the machine to be in “A-1 condition.” A DBP inspector viewed the machine, petitioner’s DBP loan of P50,000 was granted, and on September 30, 1977 respondent received the DBP check and issued Official Receipt No. 0451 acknowledging full payment per the pro forma invoice.
After delivery petitioner discovered serious defects; on November 29, 1977 he complained in writing and technicians sent by respondent failed to put the machine in running condition. Petitioner engaged other experts whose inspection disclosed several major defects requiring substantial repairs; petitioner used the machine little or not at all. Petitioner’s suit in May 1978 sought rescission and damages. The trial court rendered judgment rescinding the sale, ordering return of the machine to respondent in Iloilo and repayment of P40,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the venue stipulation in Sales Invoice No. 075A binding and did the trial court err in denying respondent’s motion to dismiss on venue?
- Was respondent bound by the express warranty (certification of “A-1 condition”) such that petitioner was entitled to rescind the sale for redhibitory defects?
- Was the action for resciss...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)