Case Summary (G.R. No. 158965)
Petitioner
Vicente and Inocencia Dino (Candy Claire Fashion Garments).
Respondent
Roman Sio (Universal Toy Master Manufacturing).
Key Dates
- Last delivery of goods: September 28, 1988
- Returns of defective items: December 12, 1988; January 11 and 17, 1989
- Filing of collection action: July 24, 1989
- Court of Appeals initial decision: April 30, 1993
- Court of Appeals amended decision (dismissing complaint): January 24, 1994
- Supreme Court decision: June 20, 2001
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution
- New Civil Code Arts. 1467, 1713–1714 (piece-of-work contracts), 1561, 1567 (warranty against hidden defects), 1571 (six-month prescription)
- Rules of Court, Rule 9, Sec. 2; 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9, Sec. 1
Nature of the Action and Prescription Issue
The Dinosaurs sought recovery of ₱208,404.00—the purchase price of 29,772 vinyl figures returned as defective—by filing an action for collection of a sum of money. The respondent invoked prescription, arguing that the six-month period under Art. 1571 expired before suit was filed.
Classification of the Contract
Because the figures were manufactured expressly to the petitioners’ specifications and would not have existed otherwise, the contract was properly classified as one for a piece of work (Arts. 1467, 1713), not a generic sale.
Application of Warranty and Remedies
Pursuant to Arts. 1714 and 1561, the producer warranted freedom from hidden defects. Under Art. 1567, the vendee could withdraw from the contract and demand a refund. The petitioners’ return of the figures and demand for repayment constituted withdrawal under this provision.
Prescriptive Period and Timeliness
Art. 1571 prescribes a six-month period from delivery for actions on hidden-defect warranties. The last delivery occurred on September 28, 1988, yet suit was filed on July 24, 1989—over nine months later—thus exceeding the statutory period.
Waiver of the Prescription Defense
While Rule 9, Sec. 2 ordinarily deems unpleaded defenses waived, jurisprudence recognizes that prescription evident on the face of the complaint may be raised at any stage (Gicano v. Gegato; Garcia v. Mathis).
Exception Based on Record Clarity
The undisputed delivery and filing dates—admitted in the complaint and memoranda—clearly show the action to be time-barred. Under the Gicano doctrine, courts may dismiss a suit on prescription even if the defense was first advanced on appeal, provided the record leaves no factual dispute
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 158965)
Facts
- Petitioners Inocencia Yu Dino and her husband trade as “Candy Claire Fashion Garments,” manufacturing and selling shirts.
- Respondent Roman Sio is part owner and general manager of a manufacturing concern known as “Universal Toy Master Manufacturing.”
- The parties contracted for the fabrication of 20,000 vinyl frogs and 20,000 vinyl mooseheads at ₱7.00 each, to match petitioners’ approved samples.
- Respondent delivered the 40,000 pieces in several installments, the last on September 28, 1988; petitioners paid in full.
- Petitioners discovered hidden defects in the vinyl figures only after customers complained of tearing, prompting the return of 29,772 pieces on December 12, 1988 (1,720 pcs.), January 11, 1989, and January 17, 1989.
- Petitioners demanded restitution of ₱208,404.00 for the returned items; respondent refused.
Procedural History
- July 24, 1989: Petitioners filed an action for collection of a sum of money in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 38.
- RTC Decision: Rendered judgment for petitioners, awarding ₱208,404.00 with legal interest from July 5, 1989, plus ₱20,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs; respondent’s counterclaim dismissed.
- April 30, 1993: Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC.
- Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration: CA raised prescription defense, contending the action was one for breach of warranty and time-barred.
- January 24, 1994: CA reversed its earlier ruling and dismissed the complaint as prescribed.
- Petition for Review: Filed in the Supreme Court, assigning errors on prescription and on raising the defense for the first time on appeal.
Issue
- Whether petitioners’ action—styled as