On November 27, 1997, petitioner purchased from respondent a brand new white Toyota Hi-Lux. The vehicle was delivered to petitioner two days later. On October 18, 1998, 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.
On the other hand, respondent maintains that petitioner’s cause of action was already barred by the statute of limitations under Article 1571 of the Civil Code for having been filed more than six months from the time the vehicle was purchased and/or delivered. Respondent reiterates that Article 169 of Republic Act No. 7394 does not apply.
SUPREME COURT:
Under Article 1599 of the Civil Code, once an express warranty is breached, the buyer can accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for damages. In the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the respondent, as in this case, the allegations in 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 him was not defective.
By filing this case, petitioner wants to hold respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine. Such being the case, petitioner should have exercised this right within six months from the delivery of the thing sold. Since petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999, or more than nineteen months counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the delivery of the motor vehicle), his cause of action had become time-barred.
Petitioner contends that the subject motor vehicle comes within the context of Republic Act No. 7394. Thus, petitioner relies on Article 68 (f) (2) in relation to Article 169 of Republic Act No. 7394. Article 4 (q) of the said law fellester.blogspot.com defines “consumer products and services” as goods, services and credits, debts or obligations which are primarily for personal, family, household or agricultural purposes, which shall include, but not limited to, food, drugs, cosmetics, and devices. The following provisions of Republic Act No. 7394 state:
Art. 67. Applicable Law on Warranties. — The provisions of the Civil Code on conditions and warranties shall govern all contracts of sale with conditions and warranties.
Art. 68. Additional Provisions on Warranties. — In addition to the Civil Code provisions on sale with warranties, the following provisions shall govern the sale of consumer products with warranty:
e) Duration of warranty. The seller and the consumer may stipulate the period within which the express warranty shall be enforceable. If the implied warranty on merchantability accompanies an express warranty, both will be of equal duration.
Any other implied warranty shall endure not less than sixty (60) days nor more than one (1) year following the sale of new consumer products.
Consequently, even if the complaint is made to fall under the Republic Act No. 7394, the same should still be dismissed since the prescriptive period for implied warranty thereunder, which is one year, had likewise lapsed.(De Guzman vs. Toyota, G.R. No. 141480, November 29, 2006)
Please read full text of the SC Decision. Click here.
The conclusion of the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned Decision stresses that the warranty provisions in Article 68 is not merely a duration of warranties but also to be interpreted as a period within which a buyer must file an action arising from warranty against hidden defects.
This also leads one to ask: what types of action then should accrue within two (2) years as contemplated by the phrase “in case of hidden defects, from discovery thereof” in Article 169 of RA No. 7394?
Art. 68. Additional Provisions on Warranties. — In addition to the Civil Code provisions on sale with warranties, the following provisions shall govern the sale of consumer products with warranty:
e) Duration of warranty. The seller and the consumer may stipulate the period within which the express warranty shall be enforceable. If the implied warranty on merchantability accompanies an express warranty, both will be of equal duration.
Any other implied warranty shall endure not less than sixty (60) days nor more than one (1) year following the sale of new consumer products.
Consequently, even if the complaint is made to fall under the Republic Act No. 7394, the same should still be dismissed since the prescriptive period for implied warranty thereunder, which is one year, had likewise lapsed.(De Guzman vs. Toyota, G.R. No. 141480, November 29, 2006)
Please read full text of the SC Decision. Click here.
COMMENTS TO SC RULING
The conclusion of the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned Decision stresses that the warranty provisions in Article 68 is not merely a duration of warranties but also to be interpreted as a period within which a buyer must file an action arising from warranty against hidden defects.
This also leads one to ask: what types of action then should accrue within two (2) years as contemplated by the phrase “in case of hidden defects, from discovery thereof” in Article 169 of RA No. 7394?
