Scribd
Upload
120 views2 pages

Torts de Guzman V Toyota Inc

Carlos De Guzman purchased a Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle from Toyota Cubao, Inc. in November 1997. Almost 11 months later, the engine developed a crack. De Guzman demanded Toyota Cubao replace the engine based on an implied warranty. Toyota Cubao refused, arguing any warranty was no longer valid. De Guzman filed a complaint in April 1999. The court dismissed the case, finding the action was barred by the 6-month statute of limitations for implied warranties under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that regardless of the law cited, the 1-year prescriptive period under the Consumer Act had also lapsed.

Uploaded by

Ann Alejo-Dela Torre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
120 views2 pages

Torts de Guzman V Toyota Inc

Carlos De Guzman purchased a Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle from Toyota Cubao, Inc. in November 1997. Almost 11 months later, the engine developed a crack. De Guzman demanded Toyota Cubao replace the engine based on an implied warranty. Toyota Cubao refused, arguing any warranty was no longer valid. De Guzman filed a complaint in April 1999. The court dismissed the case, finding the action was barred by the 6-month statute of limitations for implied warranties under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that regardless of the law cited, the 1-year prescriptive period under the Consumer Act had also lapsed.

Uploaded by

Ann Alejo-Dela Torre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Carlos De Guzman v. Toyota Cubao, Inc.

GR No. 141480 (20 November 2006)


Azcuna J., kmd

FACTS:
Petitioner Carlos B. De Guzman Respondent 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 prescribed
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.Whether or not the petitioner’s action is barred by prescription
(YES)

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 6months. 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 petitioner was not defective. Petitioner wants to hold
the respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with
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 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. 22 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.

You might also like