Case Digest (G.R. No. 142420)
Facts:
Philippine Bank of Communications v. Diamond Seafoods Corporation, G.R. No. 142420, January 29, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) sued respondent Diamond Seafoods Corporation and its officers Romeo V. Jacinto, Francisco Yu and Sheolin Yu for recovery of a sum of money with prayer for a writ of attachment, alleging default on trust receipts and related credit accommodations under a continuing surety agreement.In 1981 the corporation and the individual respondents executed a continuing Surety Agreement in favor of PBCom. On December 3, 1982 and February 14, 1983 the corporation, through Jacinto, executed Trust Receipts (No. 63725 and No. L-17572) obliging the corporation to sell specified merchandise and remit proceeds to PBCom by March 3, 1983 and May 15, 1983 respectively; when unsold the goods were to be returned. By June 15, 1983 the outstanding account had grown to P327,844.03 after adjustments, and the respondents failed to pay despite alleged demands.
PBCom filed a criminal complaint with the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila for violation of P.D. 115, which was dismissed on January 16, 1985 for failure to prosecute. Thereafter PBCom filed the instant civil complaint on July 27, 1993 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, Manila. Defendants raised prescription among other defenses.
On February 18, 1994 the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, concluding the action (based on written trust receipts) was governed by the ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the Civil Code and that no interruption had occurred; the RTC cited authorities including Luz M. Zaldivia v. Hon. Andres R. Reyes, Jr. and Ferrer v. Ericta. PBCom appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in a Decision dated May 30, 1997 (CA-G.R. CV No. 45054), affirmed the dismissal but relied on Act No. 3326 to explain interruption of prescription. PBCom’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA in a March 15, 2000 Resolution.
PBCom brought the present petition for review under Rule 45 of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the lower courts err in applying Act No. 3326 instead of Article 1155 of the Civil Code in determining interruption of prescription?
- Was the civil action timely filed, or had it prescribed under the applicable prescr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)