GR 141480; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141480 ; November 29, 2006
CARLOS B. DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. TOYOTA CUBAO, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlos B. De Guzman purchased a brand-new Toyota Hi-Lux from respondent Toyota Cubao, Inc. on November 27, 1997. The vehicle was delivered on November 29, 1997. On October 18, 1998, petitioner demanded the replacement of the vehicle’s engine, which had developed a crack, asserting that respondent was liable under an implied warranty against hidden defects. Respondent refused the demand. Consequently, on April 20, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription. The RTC granted the motion, ruling that the action, being based on an implied warranty against hidden defects, had prescribed. The court applied Article 1571 of the Civil Code, which sets a six-month prescriptive period for a redhibitory action, and alternatively noted that under the Consumer Act ( Republic Act No. 7394 ), the duration of an implied warranty cannot exceed one year. Since the complaint was filed almost nineteen months after the sale and delivery, it was time-barred. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court denied the petition. First, on a procedural ground, the petition violated the hierarchy of courts. The proper remedy from the RTC’s final order was an appeal via a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, not a direct petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Substantively, the complaint was correctly dismissed due to prescription. The core cause of action was for breach of implied warranty against hidden defects. Under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, such an action prescribes in six months from the delivery of the thing sold. The complaint was filed on April 20, 1999, well beyond six months from the vehicle’s delivery on November 29, 1997.
The Court also examined the Consumer Act. While it provides that an implied warranty on merchantability endures for not less than sixty days nor more than one year following the sale, this does not extend the prescriptive period for filing an action. The two-year prescriptive period under Article 169 of the Consumer Act applies to breaches of express warranties, not implied warranties. Even under this one-year duration, the action filed after nineteen months was still time-barred. The claims for moral damages and attorney’s fees, being ancillary to the main warranty claim, could not stand independently. Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed.