De Guzman v. Toyota Cubao, Inc. GR No. 141480 (20 November 2006) Azcuna J., kmd
SUBJECT MATTER: Representations & Warranties; Implied warranty against hidden defects; prescription CASE SUMMARY: De Guzman purchased a Hilux from Toyota Cubao. Almost a year after, the Hilux’s engine cracked while traversing Marcos Highway during a heavy rain. De Guzman filed a complaint for damages 17 months after the purchase. Toyota filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that based on Art. 1571, the action has prescribed as the case was filed more than 6 months after the purchase. The SC agreed that the action was already barred by prescription.
DOCTRINES: Where the cause of action is to hold a seller of a vehicle for a breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine, the action should be filed within 6 months from the delivery of the thing sold.
FACTS: Petitioner Respondent
Carlos B. De Guzman Toyota Cubao, Inc.
On November 27, 1997, petitioner purchased from respondent a brand new white Toyota Hi-Lux 2.4 SS double cab motor vehicle, 1996 model in the amount of P508,000. Petitioner made a down payment of P152,400, leaving a balance of P355,600 which was payable in 36 months with 54% interest. The vehicle was delivered 2 days after . On October 18, 1998, almost 11 months after the purchase and after 12,000 km of use, petitioner demanded the replacement of the engine of the vehicle because it developed a crack after traversing Marcos Highway during a heavy rain. Petitioner asserted that respondent should replace the engine with a new one based on an implied warranty . Respondent countered that the alleged damage on the engine was not covered by a warranty. On April 20, 1999, 17 months after the purchase, petitioner filed a complaint for damages against respondent with the RTC.
Respondent moved to dismiss the case on the ground that under Art. 1571 CC, petitioner’s cause of action had prescrib ed as the case was filed more than 6 months from the date the vehicle was sold and/or delivered. RTC – granted the motion to dismiss. The contract of sale of the subject pick-up carried an implied warranty that it was free from any hidden faults or defects, or any charge or encumbrance not declared or known to the buyer. The prescriptive period thereof is 6 months under Art. 1571 CC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE/S: 1.
WON the petitioner’s action is barred by prescription . (YES)
HOLDING/RATIO: 1.
Petitioner’s argument : The dismissal is erroneous because the applicable provision is Art. 169 of RA 7394 (The Consumer Act of the Philippines) and not Art. 1571 CC. In seeking enforcement of the contract, i.e. that respondent should either replace the vehicle or its engine with a new one, he cited Art. 169 RA 7394 to make the suit come within the purview of the 2-year prescriptive period . Also, the cause of action based on quasi-delict, prescribes in 4 years, thus his cause of action has not yet prescribed . Respondent’s argument : Cause of action was already barred by the statute of limitations under Art. 1571 CC for having been filed more than 6 months. Art. 169 RA 7394 does not apply.
Petitioner’s argument is erroneous.
In the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the respondent, as in this case, the allegations in the petitioner’s complaint for damages were clearly anchored on the enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects, i.e., that the engine of the vehicle which respondent had sold to the p etitioner was not defective. Petitioner wants to hold the respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with a defective engine. However, the petitioner should have exercised the right within 6 months from the delivery of the thing sold . Since the petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999 or more than 19 months (Mali bilang ng SC! 17 months lang) counting from November 29, 1997 (date of purchase), his cause of action had become time barred . Even if the complaint is made to fall under RA 7394 Art. 68 (f)(2) 1 in relation to Art. 169, Art. 68 (e) par. 2 2 would justify that the same should still be dismissed since the prescriptive period for implied warranty thereunder which is one year, had likewise lapsed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being in violation of the hierarchy of courts (procedural issue not discussed here), and in any event, for lack of merit.
1 RA
7394 Art 68 (f) Breach of warranties – xxx (2) In case of breach of implied w arranty, the consumer may retain the goods and recover damages, or reject the goods, cancel the contract and recover from the seller so much of the purchase price as has been paid, including damages. 2 Any other implied warranty shall endure not less than 60 days nor more than 1 year following the sale of new consumer products.
