SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 96271, June 26, 1992 ]
NATIVIDAD VILLOSTAS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
SECOND DIVISION, THE HON. SALVADOR S. TENSUAN AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC,
MAKATI, BRANCH 146 AND ELECTROLUX MARKETING, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the
annulment of the resolution[1] of
the respondent Court of Appeals, dated November 16, 1990, in CA-G.R. Sp. No.
23178 denying the petitioner's appeal which in effect affirms the decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 90-1420 sustaining the decision[3]
of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati, Metro Manila, dated
November 15, 1989 ordering herein petitioner to pay private respondent, among
others, the amount of P14,540.00.
The established facts of the case are as follows:
Desiring to have safe drinking water at home, herein petitioner
Villostas and her husband decided to buy a water purifier. At about this time, private respondent's
Eletrolux sales agents were making door to door selling of its products in the
subdivision where petitioner has her residence. Because private respondent's sales agents had assured petitioner
of the very special features of their brand of water purifier, petitioner
Villostas placed an order for one (1) unit of said water purifier. On September 13, 1986, an Electrolux Aqua
Guard water purifier was delivered and installed at petitioner's residence
(Rollo, p. 38; 49). Consequently,
petitioner signed the Sales Order (Annex "B", p. 31) and the Contract
of Sale with Reservation of Title (Annex "A", p. 31) in October 1986
(Rollo, p. 38, 22). A warranty
certificate, Exhibit "1", was issued by private respondent which provides
that:
"ELECTROLUX MARKETING, INCORPORATED WARRANTS THIS QUALITY ELECTROLUX PRODUCT TO PERFORM EFFICIENTLY FOR ONE FULL YEAR FROM DATE OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE." (Rollo, p. 49)
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.
After two (2) weeks,
petitioner verbally complained for the first time about the impurities,
dirtiness and bad odor coming out of the unit (Rollo, p. 22). On October 21, 1986, private respondent
Electrolux sent its service technician to examine and test the water
purifier. The water which came out was
dirty so the unit was shut off automatically (Ibid.). The technician changed the filter of the unit on said date
without charge with an instruction that the filter should be changed every 6
months otherwise the unit will not last long as the water in the area was dirty
(Ibid.).
After the filter was replaced, petitioner paid the amount of
P1,650.00 on November 18, 1986 which included the first amortization of P700.00
(Ibid.).
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 Villostas 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 (Rollo, pp. 22-23).
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 (Rollo, p. 76). Electrolux's branch manager offered to change the water purifier with
another brand of 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. Consequently, petitioner did not pay any
more the subsequent installments in the amount of P14,540.00 exclusive of
interests. (Rollo, p. 23, 120).
What transpired next was an exchange of demand letter and reply
between petitioner and private respondent.
Ultimately, respondent Electrolux Marketing, Inc. filed a
complaint against petitioner Villostas with the MTC of Makati for the
recovery of the sum of P14,540.00 representing the unpaid balance of the
purchase price of one (1) Electrolux Water Purifier plus interest thereon at
the rate of 42% per annum in accordance with the Sales Contract with
Reservation of Title (Rolo, pp. 28-30).
In her amended answer,
petitioner Villostas asserted that by reason of private respondent's breach of
warranty she was availing of the remedy of rescission of the contract of sale
and offered to return the water purifier to the seller as in fact, it was
already being offered for return as early as December 9, 1986, aside from claiming
for the refund of her payments. Petitioner prayed that the contract of sale be declared rescinded and
the payments refunded to her together with the full grant of the claims
asserted in her counterclaims (Rollo, pp. 35-36).
After trial on the merits, the MTC of Makati rendered its
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff as follows:
“1) the amount of P14,540.00 representing the unpaid outstanding balance of the aforesaid unit, plus interest thereon at the rate of P42% per annum until fully paid;
“2) the amount of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees and
“3) dismissing the counterclaim of defendant.
"SO ORDERED." (Rollo, pp. 38-44)
The petitioner, thereafter, filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment of said lower court. The
Regional Trial Court of Makati rendered its judgment affirming the disputed
decision (Rollo, pp. 21-24).
A motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals and was given an inextendible period
of 15 days to file a petition for review. Anticipating that she would fail to comply with the deadline, herein
petitioner filed a second extension to file a petition for review which,
however, was denied.
Herein, petitioner comes to this Court via petition for
review on certiorari.
Petitioner assigns the following errors:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUPREME COURT IS PROPER AND RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.
II
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RESCIND THE CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF THE WARRANTY FOR HIDDEN DEFECT OF THE ARTICLE DELIVERED BY THE RESPONDENT.
III
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS BOUND TO PAY RESPONDENT HER REMAINING BALANCE OF P14,540.00 PLUS INTEREST THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT OF SALE.
IV
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY RESPONDENT ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT PLUS COSTS OF SUIT.
The main issue in the instant case is 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.
Petitioner contends that the Regional Trial Court erred when it
ruled that its claim for rescission had prescribed inasmuch as she had formally
notified the seller within a reasonable time, that is, 2 months and 26 days,
from the delivery of water purifier on September 13, 1986 of her election to
rescind.
Private respondent counters that the petitioner is not entitled
to rescission vis-a-vis alleged violation of the warranty for hidden
defects for the reason that rescission of contract sought by petitioner was
beyond the jurisdictional competence of the trial court. It adds that petitioner could no longer
avail of rescission because said legal recourse was time barred judging from
delivery of the water purifier on September 13, 1986 pursuant to Art. 1571 of
the New Civil Code.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Anent the jurisdictional competence of the Metropolitan Trial
Court to order rescission of contract, suffice it to say that the action was
initiated by herein private respondent Electrolux when it filed a complaint for
collection of a sum of money worth P14,540.00, against petitioner
Villostas. Said amount is indubitably
within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court since it does not
exceed P20,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs but inclusive of damages of whatever (Maceda v. CA, G.R. No.
83545, 176 SCRA 440 [1989]). Moreover,
the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein (Caparros
v. CA, G.R. No. 56803, 170 SCRA 758 [1989]). When the petitioner, therefore, raised rescission of contract in her
answer, the court is not divested of its jurisdiction over the case on account
of defenses raised by the answer. The
court is then merely authorized to receive evidence thereon (Dela Cruz v.
Bautista, G.R. No. 39692, 186 SCRA 517, [1990]). Clearly, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend
upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss. Otherwise, the question of jurisdiction
would depend almost entirely upon the defendant (Caparros v. CA, supra).
As regards the contention that the action for rescission is
barred by prescription under Art. 1571 of the Civil Code, the same is bereft of
merit. It must be pointed out that at
the time the Electrolux Aqua Guard water purifier was delivered and installed
at petitioner Villostas' residence, a Warranty Certificate was issued by
private respondent Electrolux which reads:
"ELECTROLUX MARKETING, INCORPORATED WARRANTS THIS QUALITY ELECTROLUX PRODUCT TO PERFORM EFFICIENTLY FOR ONE FULL YEAR FROM DATE OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE."
The foregoing is clearly an express warranty regarding the
efficiency of the water purifier. On
this regard the court said that 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. Consequently, the
general rule on rescission of contract, which is four years (Article 1389,
Civil Coded) shall apply (Moles v. IAC, G.R. No. 73913, 169 SCRA 777
[1989]). Inasmuch as the instant case
involves an express warranty, the filing of petitioner's amended answer on
September 30, 1988 is well within the four-year prescriptive period for
rescission of contract from September 13, 1986, which was the delivery date of
the unit.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the complaint of private respondent is
DISMISSED. The sale of the water
purifier is hereby RESCINDED.
SO ORDERED.Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Nocon, J., on leave.
[1]
Penned by Justice Asaali Isnani, concurred in by Justices Jose Melo and Antonio
Martinez.
[2]
Penned by Judge Salvador Tensuan.
[3]
Penned by Judge Romulo Lapuz.
No comments:
Post a Comment