GR L 45741; (April, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45741; April 27, 1939
F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO (VELA HERMANOS), plaintiff-appellant, vs. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff, a mercantile partnership, filed a complaint to recover sums of money from defendants based on two documents signed by their agent. The first document, dated March 23, 1931, acknowledged a debt of P1,070.90 with 1% monthly interest. The second, dated February 5, 1932, acknowledged receipt of P279.37 for a future delivery of goods (with details left blank), also with 1% monthly interest and a 30% attorney’s fee clause. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint, ruling that the obligations contained a period that needed to be fixed by the court and that the action was therefore premature.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff’s action for the collection of the sums was prematurely filed, necessitating a prior judicial action to fix a period for payment.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal order. The plaintiff, being a merchant engaged in commerce, and the obligations being commercial in nature (a loan and a purchase/sale for resale), are governed by the Code of Commerce. Under Article 62 of the Code of Commerce, obligations without a fixed period are demandable ten days after being contracted if they give rise to an ordinary action. Since no period for payment was expressed in the documents, the obligations became demandable ten days after their execution. The plaintiff’s action was not premature, as the period had long expired and demand had been made. The case was remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits.
AI Generated by Armztrong.