GR L 11381; (April, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11381; April 28, 1958
ATKINS KROLL and CO., INC., plaintiff-appellants, vs. CITY OF MANILA and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as City Treasurer, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellant, Atkins Kroll and Co., Inc., a domestic corporation, paid meat inspection fees totaling P3,553.33 to the City of Manila under Ordinance No. 2991, from January 19, 1949, to March 28, 1950. On January 11, 1951, the Secretary of Justice issued an opinion declaring Ordinance No. 2991 void. Subsequently, on October 31, 1952, the City approved Ordinance No. 3538, authorizing the full refund of all meat inspection fees paid under the void ordinance and appropriating funds for that purpose. On November 20, 1952, the appellant filed a claim for refund with the City Treasurer, which was disallowed. The appellant then filed a complaint for recovery of the amount in the Court of First Instance of Manila on January 6, 1955. The defendants-appellees raised the defenses that the fees were paid voluntarily and without protest and that the action had prescribed. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant’s action for the refund of the inspection fees had prescribed at the time the complaint was filed on January 6, 1955.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, ruling that the action had not prescribed. The Court held, following its precedent in Wise and Co., Inc. vs. City of Manila, et al., that the cause of action for the recovery of the fees accrued on October 31, 1952, when Ordinance No. 3538 authorizing the refund was enacted. From that date until the complaint was filed on January 6, 1955, only two years, two months, and eight days had elapsed. Whether the prescriptive period was six years under Article 1145 of the New Civil Code, four years under Article 1146(1) of the New Civil Code, or four years under Section 43, paragraph 3, of Act No. 190 , the action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Court ordered judgment for the refund of P3,553.33 to the plaintiff, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint.