G.R No. 164985 January 15,
2014
Facts: Petitioners First United
Constructors Corporation andBlue Star Construction Corporation were associate construction
firms sharing financial resources, equipment and technical personnel on a
case-to-case basis. From May 27, 1992 to July 8, 1992, they ordered six units
of dump trucks from the respondent .On September 19, 1992, FUCC ordered from
the respondent one unit of Hino Prime Mover and ordered again on September 29,
1992, one unit of Isuzu Transit Mixer. For the two purchases, FUCC partially
paid in cash, and the balance through post-dated checks. Upon presentment of
the checks for payment, the respondent learned that FUCC had ordered the
payment stopped. The respondent immediately demanded the full settlement of
their obligation from the petitioners, but to no avail. The petitioners
informed the respondent that they were withholding payment of the checks due to
the breakdown of one of the dump trucks they had earlier purchased from
respondent. The petitioners submit that they were justified in stopping the
payment of the two checks due to the respondent’s breach of warranty by
refusing to repair or replace the defective second dump truck earlier purchased.
Issue: Whether the petitioners can validly exercised the
right of recoupment through the withholding of payment of the unpaid balance of
the purchase price.
Ruling:
No, Petitioners could not validly resort to recoupment against respondent.
Recoupment (reconvencion) is the act of rebating or recouping a part of a claim
Defendants-appellants’ act of ordering the payment on the prime mover and
transit mixer stopped was improper considering that the said sale was a
different contract from that of the dump trucks earlier purchased by
defendants-appellants. The claim of defendants-appellants for breach of
warrantyis therefore not a proper subject of recoupment since it does not arise
out of the contract or transaction sued on or the claim of plaintiff-appellee
for unpaid balances on the last two (2) purchases. Recoupment must arise out of
the contract or transaction upon which the plaintiff’s claim is founded.To be
entitled to recoupment, therefore, the claim must arise from the same
transaction. That there was a series of purchases made by petitioners could not
be considered as a single transaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment