Case Summary (G.R. No. 73913)
Factual Background
In May 1978, Moles filed a complaint against Diolosa in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, seeking rescission of the contract for the sale of a linotype machine and damages. In his defense, Diolosa invoked a clause in a sale invoice stipulating that any legal actions related to the contract must be filed in Iloilo City. The trial court initially denied Diolosa's motion to dismiss based on venue concerns, leading to Diolosa's petition for prohibition, which was dismissed for lack of merit.
Venue Dispute and Rulings
The case underscores a disagreement over the venue for the lawsuit, centered on a sales invoice that Diolosa argued mandated legal actions be taken in Iloilo City. The trial court rejected this claim, determining that the invoice was not a binding contract but merely a pro forma document. The dismissal of Diolosa's petition for prohibition reiterated the trial court's findings.
Contract and Warranties
The transaction for the linotype machine was primarily verbal, supplemented by a pro forma invoice from April 23, 1977. Moles contended that the machine was defective and unfit for use, a claim supported by an expert's examination. Diolosa issued a certification claiming the machine was in "A-1 condition," serving as an express warranty that would bind him to the condition of the machine sold.
Expert Witness and Defects
The evidence demonstrated that significant repairs were needed for the machine, bolstering Moles' claim for rescission based on redhibitory defects under the Civil Code. The court accepted the expert's assessments, validating that the defects constituted a justifiable basis for rescission of the contract.
Rescission and Legal Implications
The trial court ruled in favor of Moles, ordering the rescission of the sale, the return of the machine, and the refund of the purchase price along with damages and attorney's fees. This decision was appealed by Diolosa, but the appellate court's dismissal of Moles' claim was later reversed, reinstating the trial court's judgment.
Prescription and Express Warranties
The appellate court's decision also touched on the issue of prescription for rescission actions. Although Diolosa raised o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 73913)
Case Background
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Jerry T. Moles against the Intermediate Appellate Court and private respondent Mariano M. Diolosa.
- The petition challenges the appellate court's decision to dismiss Moles' complaint for rescission of contract with damages, which was initially filed in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.
Factual Context
- On May 17, 1978, Jerry T. Moles initiated a lawsuit against Mariano M. Diolosa seeking rescission of a contract related to a linotype machine sale.
- Diolosa's motion to dismiss was based on improper venue, citing a stipulation in Sales Invoice No. 075A which stated that legal actions must be brought in Iloilo City.
- Moles opposed the motion, arguing the sale was primarily verbal, lacking a formal contract.
Procedural History
- The trial court denied Diolosa's motion to dismiss on June 23, 1978, ruling that the venue issue could not be resolved at that stage.
- Diolosa's subsequent petition for prohibition to the Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of merit.
- After trial, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Moles, leading Diolosa to appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court which subsequently reversed the trial court's decision.
Key Issues
- The primary issues in the case revolve around:
- The validity of the venue st