DE GUZMAN V. TOYOTA; COCA-COLA V. GERONIMO;VILLOSTAS; case digest by valbuena

1. G.R. No. 141480 November 29, 2006CARLOS B. DE GUZMAN, Petitioner,vs. TOYOTA CUBAO, INC., Respondent.

On November 27, 1997, petitioner purchased from respondent a brand new white Toyota Hi-Lux. The vehicle was delivered to petitioner two days later. On October 18, 1998, Mr. de Guzman demanded for the replacement of the engine of the vehicle because it showed a crack during a trip that passes Marcos Highway during a heavy rain. Mr. De Guzman demanded for the Toyota dealer to replace the engine with a new one based on an implied warranty.

On the other hand, Toyota Cubao maintains that Mr De Guzman's claim for replacement was already barred by the statute of limitations amd had therefore prescribed under Article 1571 of the Civil Code for claiming cause of action for more than six months from the time the vehicle was purchased and/or delivered. Respondent reiterates that Article 169 of Republic Act No. 7394 does not apply.

SUPREME COURT HELD:

Under Article 1599 of the Civil Code, once an express warranty is breached, the buyer can accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for damages. In the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the respondent, as in this case, the allegations in petitioner’s complaint for damages were clearly anchored on the enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects, in which in this case, that the engine of the vehicle which Toyota had sold to Mr. de Guzman was not defective.

By filing this case, Mr. de Guzman wants to hold Toyota responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine. Such being the case, petitioner should have exercised this right within six months from the delivery of the thing sold. Since petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999, or more than nineteen months counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the delivery of the motor vehicle), his cause of action had prescribed.

2. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. CA and MS. LYDIA GERONIMO

G.R. No. 110295 October 18, 1993

Petition for review on certiorari (under Rule45) the decision of the CA

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

FACTS: Private respondent was the proprietress of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen in Dagupan City. In August 1989, some parents of the students complained to her that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks sold by her contained fiber-like matter and other foreign substances. She brought the said bottles for examination to DOH and it was found out that the soft drinks “are adulterated.” As a result, her per day sales of soft drinks severely plummeted that she had to close her shop on 12 December 1989 for losses. She demanded damages from petitioner before the RTC which dismissed the same on motion by petitioner based on the ground of Prescription. On appeal, the CA annulled the orders of the RTC.

ISSUE: WON the action for damages by the proprietress against the soft drinks manufacturer should be treated as one for breach of implied warranty under article 1561 of the CC which prescribes after six months from delivery of the thing sold.

RULING: Petition Denied.

The SC agrees with the CA’s conclusion that the cause of action in the case at bar is found on quasi-delict under Article 1146 of the CC which prescribes in four years and not on breach of warranty under article 1562 of the same code. This is supported by the allegations in the complaint which makes reference to the reckless and negligent manufacture of "adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption."

3. Villostas vs CA

G.R. No. 96271

June 26, 1992

FACTS:

Petitioner Villostas and her husband placed an order for one unit of water purifier from private respondent’s Electrolux sales agents. Private respondent’s sales agents assured petitioner of the very special features of their brand of water purifier. On September 13, 1986, an Electrolux Aqua Guard Water purifier was delivered and installed at petitioner’s residence. Petitioner signed the Sales Order and the Contract of Sale with Reservation of Title in October 1986. A warranty certificate was issued by private respondent which provides that the product will perform efficiently for one full year from date of original purchase. The purchase of said unit was on installment basis under which petitioner would pay the amount of P16,190.00 in 20 monthly installments of P635.00 a month. However, after two (2) weeks, petitioner verbally complained about the impurities, dirtiness and bad odor coming out of the unit. Thus, private respondent Electrolux changed the filter of the unit. Petitioner complained for the second and third time when dirty water still came out of the water purifier after the replacement of the filter. It was on the third complaint of petitioner when the service technician gave advise that the filter should be changed every six (6) months costing about P300.00 which was considered to be uneconomical by the former.

On December 9, 1986, petitioner sent a letter to the private respondent’s branch manager stating therein her complaint that the actual performance of the carbon filter was only for a month instead of the private respondent’s claim that the replacement of such filter will be only once every six (6) months. The petitioner, citing the above incident as uneconomical, decided to return the unit and demand a refund for the amount paid. Electrolux’s branch manager offered to change the water purifier with another brand or any of its appliance of the unit in her favor. Petitioner did not accept it as she was disappointed with the original unit which did not perform as warranted.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to rescind the contract on the basis of a violation of the warranty of the article delivered by the respondent.

HELD:

Yes. At the time the Electrolux Aqua Guard water puritier was delivered and installed at petitioner Villostas’ residence a Warranty Certificate was issued by private respondent Electrolux which provides that the product will perform efficiently for one full year from date of original purchase.

It clearly expresses warranty regarding the efficiency of the water purifier. On this regard, while it is true that Article 1571 of the Civil Code provides for a prescriptive period of six months for a redhibitory action, a cursory reading of the ten preceding articles to which it refers will reveal that said rule may be applied only in case of implied warranties. The present case involves one with an express warranty.