ANQ Construction Corp. v. Ultra Petronne Interior Supply Corp.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251944. September 30, 2020.]

ANQ CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. ULTRA PETRONNE INTERIOR SUPPLY CORPORATION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 September 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251944 (ANQ Construction Corporation v. Ultra Petronne Interior Supply Corporation). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated May 30, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated January 9, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 06715 for failure of ANQ Construction Corporation (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of its complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages against Ultra Petronne Interior Supply Corporation (respondent) on the ground of prescription.

Settled is the rule that the nature of a pleading is to be determined by the averments in it and not by its title. 4 Although petitioner's complaint before the Regional Trial Court is denominated as one for "Collection of Sum of Money and Damages," a perusal of its allegations will reveal that the action is in effect an Action for Damages Arising from Breach of Warranty.

The complaint is bereft of any clear averment of an express warranty made by respondent as regards the quality, fitness or merchantability of the marine plywood delivered. Neither was there an allegation as to respondent's affirmation of fact or any promise that could have induced petitioner to purchase the materials. In De Guzman v. Toyota Cubao, Inc., 5 the Court held that in the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the [seller], the allegations in the [buyer]'s complaint for damages were clearly anchored on the enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects. Under Article 1571 in relation to Articles 1561 to 1570 of the Civil Code, the vendee's right to hold the vendor responsible for breach of implied warranty should be exercised within six (6) months from the delivery of the materials in accordance with Article 1571 of the Civil Code. Unfortunately, when petitioner filed its complaint on May 7, 2013, its right of action for breach of implied warranty against hidden defects (Article 1561 of the Civil Code) or implied warranty on the quality of the goods, fitness or merchantability (Article 1562 of the Civil Code) has already been barred.

In insisting that the proper law to apply in this case is Article 1144 (ten-year prescriptive period) instead of Article 1571 (six-month prescriptive period), petitioner had been unmindful that Article 1144 and Article 1145 are embodied in Book III of the Civil Code (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership) involving the prescription of actions. On the other hand, Article 1571 is found in Book IV (Obligations and Contracts, Title VI — Sales) relating to prescription of actions arising from breach of implied warranty. Article 1571 is a provision of general character which is applicable only in the absence of a specific provision in the Civil Code on a particular subject matter. In conformity with the sound rules of statutory construction, the particular or specific provision shall prevail over the general provision of law. Hence, Article 1571 which provides for the six-month prescriptive period for filing an action based on breach of warranty shall apply.

SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 18-33.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring; id. at 36-45.

3.Id. at 52-54.

4.Hirakawa v. Lopzcom Realty Corp., G.R. No. 213230, December 5, 2019, citing Bank of Commerce v. Perlas-Bernabe, 648 Phil. 326, 338 (2010).

5. 538 Phil. 258, 267-268 (2006).