THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 261516. August 31, 2022.]
REMCO TRANSPORT, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. GERARDITO M. SAN DIEGO, petitioner,vs.JARVIS MOTORIST SERVICES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOYCE ANGELICA VISTAN-LEONARDO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 31, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 261516 (Remco Transport, Inc., represented by its President, Mr. Gerardito M. San Diego v. Jarvis Motorist Services Corporation, represented by its President, Joyce Angelica Vistan-Leonardo). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 fulminates against the Decision2 dated 25 August 2020 and the Resolution3 dated 16 June 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158743, dismissing the petition for certiorari which assailed the Resolutions dated 8 January 2017 4 and 27 September 2018 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Branch 13, and denying the Motion for Reconsideration, 6 thereof.
The Petition is devoid of merit.
Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, an action based upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. A check comes within the scope of a written contract as it is a negotiable instrument — written and signed by a drawer containing an unconditional order to pay on demand a sum certain in money. 7 Case law instructs that a check is "subject to prescription of actions upon a written contract" 8 and that a check constitutes an evidence of indebtedness. 9 More recently, the Court held that in a case for collection of money, the cause of action is collection of sum of money based on the dishonored checks. 10 Appositely, "the cause of action based on a check is reckoned from the date indicated on the check." 11
In the present case, the cause of action filed by respondent Jarvis Motorist Services Corporation 12 is for the collection of sums of money based on the seven checks issued by petitioner Remco Transport, Inc., 13 which were dishonored. As the checks represented an undertaking by petitioner to pay respondent the amounts indicated therein, the said checks could prove a loan transaction. 14 The checks issued by petitioner in favor of respondent were dated 31 July 2007; 8, 20, 23 and 25 of August 2007; and 5 and 14 of September 2007, respectively. Respondent filed its complaint on 26 July 2017. Accordingly, the action was instituted within the ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Hence, the action is not barred by prescription, contrary to petitioner's contention.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 25 August 2020 and the Resolution dated 16 June 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158743 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-21.
2. Id. at 29-37. Penned by Associate Justice Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., with Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
3. Id. at 39-41. Penned by Associate Justice Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., with Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring
4. Id. at 42-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Efren B. Tienzo.
5. Id. at 48.
6. Id. at 40-56.
7. Negotiable Instruments Law, Section 1.
8. See Evangelista v. Screenex, Inc., 820 Phil. 997, 1010 (2017).
9. See Buenaflor v. Federated Distributors, Inc., G.R. Nos. 240187-88, 28 March 2022.
10. See Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Spouses Uy, G.R. No. 212002, 28 July 2021.
11. Supra note 7.
12. Represented by Joyce Angelica Vistan-Leonardo, President.
13. Represented by Gerardo M. San Diego, President.
14. Supra note 8, citing Ting Ting Pua v. Sps. Lo Bun Tiong and Siok Ching Teng, 720 Phil. 511 (2013).