04 Chrysler Philippines Corp. Vs CA

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 6
 
9/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d13c66e7e753d22a6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 19, 1984567
Chrysler Philippines Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
 No. L-55684. December 19, 1984.
*
CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
 THEHONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SAMBOK MOTORSCO. (BACOLOD), respondents.
Civil Law; Sales; Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of  goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them.
 —Under thecircumstances, Sambok, Bacolod, cannot be faulted for not accepting or refusing to accept the shipment from Negros Navigation four years after shipment. The evidence is clear that Negros Navigation could not producethe merchandise nor ascertain its whereabouts at the time Sambok Bacolod,was ready to take delivery. Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantityof goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them.
Same; Same; General rule that before delivery, the risk of loss is borneby the seller who is still the owner, under the principle of res petit domino;Case at bar 
.—From the evidentiary record, Negros Navigation was the party negligent in failing to deliver the complete shipment either to Sambok,Bacolod, or to Sambok, Iloilo, but as the Trial Court found, petitioner failedto comply with the conditions precedent to the filing of a judicial action.Thus, in the last analysis, it is petitioner that must shoulder the resultingloss. The general rule that before delivery, the risk of loss is borne by theseller who is still the owner, under the principle of “
res perit domino
”, isapplicable in petitioner’s case.
PETITION for review the decision of the Court of Appeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 
 Reyes, Santayana, Tayao & Picazo Law Office
 for petitioner. 
 Alampay, Alvero & Alampay Law Office
 for privaterespondent.MELENCIO-HERRERA,
 J.:
Subject of this Petition for Review is the Decision of the then Courtof Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 65328-R reversing the
 _______________ 
 
9/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d13c66e7e753d22a6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
*
 FIRST DIVISION.
568
568SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Chrysler Philippines Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
 judgment of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XX, inCivil Case No. 16624, and dismissing petitioner Chrysler Philippines Corporation’s suit for Damages against privaterespondent Sambok Motors Company (Bacolod) arising from breachof contract.Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the assemblingand sale of motor vehicles and other automotive products.Respondent Sambok Motors Co., a general partnership, during the period relevant to these proceedings, was its dealer for automotive products with offices at Bacolod (Sambok, Bacolod) and Iloilo(Sambok, Iloilo). The two offices were run by relatives. Miguel Ngwas Assistant Manager for Sambok, Bacolod, while an elder brother,Pepito Ng, was the President.
1
On September 7, 1972, petitioner filed with the Court of FirstInstance of Rizal, Branch XX, Pasig, Rizal, a Complaint for Damages against Allied Brokerage Corporation, Negros NavigationCompany and Sambok, Bacolod, alleging that on October 2, 1970,Sambok, Bacolod, ordered from petitioner various automotive products worth P30,909.61, payable in 45 days; that on November 25, 1970, petitioner delivered said products to its forwarding agent,Allied Brokerage Corporation, for shipment; that Allied Brokerageloaded the goods on board the M/S Dona Florentina, a vessel ownedand operated by Negros Navigation Company, for delivery toSambok, Bacolod; that when petitioner tried to collect from thelatter the amount of P31,037.56, representing the price of the spare parts plus handling charges, Sambok, Bacolod, refused to payclaiming that it had not received the merchandise; that petitioner also demanded the return of the merchandise or their value fromAllied Brokerage and Negros Navigation, but both denied anyliability.In its Answer, Sambok, Bacolod, denied having received from petitioner or from any of its co-defendants, the automotive productsreferred to in the Complaint, and professed no knowledge of havingordered from petitioner said articles.Upon a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner and AlliedBrokerage, the Trial Court, on October 23, 1975,
 ________________ 
1
 Exhibit “6”, Deposition, Miguel Ng, p. 4.
5
 
9/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d13c66e7e753d22a6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
(1)(2)(a)(b)(c)(3)
569
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 19, 1984569
Chrysler Philippines Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
dismissed the case with prejudice against Allied Brokerage for lack of cause of action, and also dismissed the latter’s counter-claimagainst petitioner.On July 31, 1978, the Trial Court rendered its Decisiondismissing the Complaint against Negros Navigation for lack of cause of action, but finding Sambok, Bacolod, liable for the claim of  petitioner, thus:
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court renders judgment as follows:The complaint against defendant Negros Navigation is dismissedfor lack of cause of action.Defendant Sambok Motors Co. (Bacolod) is ordered to pay plaintiff Chrysler Philippines Corporation:The sum of Thirty-One Thousand Thirty Seven Pesos and Fifty SixCentavos (P31,037.56) with interest at the rate of twelve percent(12) per annum from January 1, 1971 until fully paid;The sum of Five Thousand Pesos as and for attorney’s fees andexpenses of litigation;The costs of the suit.The counterclaim of defendant Negros Navigation and Sambok Motors Co. (Bacolod) are dismissed for lack of merit.”
The case against Negros Navigation was dismissed for failure of  petitioner and Sambok, Bacolod, to file the necessary notices andclaims as conditions precedent for a judicial action.
2
On the other hand, the Trial Court found that the act of Sambok,Bacolod, “in refusing to take delivery of the shipment for no justifiable reason from Negros Navigation despite having receivedthe Bill of Lading constituted wrongful neglect or refusal to acceptand pay for the subject shipment, by reason of which defendantSambok Motors may be held liable for damages.”Sambok, Bacolod, appealed. On November 26, 1980, respondentAppellate Court set aside the appealed judgment and
 _______________ 
2
 CFI Decision, Rollo, p. 140.
570
5
 
9/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d13c66e7e753d22a6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
570SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Chrysler Philippines Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
dismissed petitioner’s Complaint, after finding that the latter had not performed its part of the obligation under the contract by notdelivering the goods at Sambok, Iloilo, the place designated in theParts Order Form (Exhibits “A”, “A-1” to “A-6”), and must,therefore, suffer the loss. In other words, respondent Appellate Courtfound that there was misdelivery.Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, with the followingerrors assigned to respondent Court:
“I“The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in finding that the issue of misshipment or misdelivery of the automotive spare parts involved in thelitigation was raised by the private respondent Sambok Motors Co.(Bacolod) in the Trial Court.II“The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply the provisions of Section 18, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court quoted below, that since the question of misshipment or misdelivery was not raised by the private respondent in the Trial Court, this issue cannot for the firsttime be raised on appeal.
‘Section 18. Questions that may be raised on appeal.—Whether or not the appellanthas filed a motion for new trial in the court below, he may include in his assignmentof errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below andwhich is within the issues framed by the parties.’
III“The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in finding that the privaterespondent gave the alleged instruction to the petitioner to ship theautomotive spare parts to Iloilo City and not to Bacolod City.IV“The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in finding that the defendant Negros Navigation notified the private respondent of the arrival of theshipment at Bacolod City.
571
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 19, 1984571
Chrysler Philippines Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
V
5
5
5

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505