Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

101 Phil 184:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9729. April 24, 1957.]

THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHUA TUA HIAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Arnaldo J. Guzman for Appellant.

Yuseco, Abdon, Yuseco & Narvasa for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MORATORIUM LAWS; ENACTMENT OF LAW WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE; EFFECT ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION. — In Rutter v. Esteban, (93 Phil., 68) this Court did not declare the moratorium act (Republic Act No. 342) as unconstitutional and void ab initio; on the contrary, it recognized that the enactment of a moratorium law, suspending for a reasonable period of remedies for the enforcement of some obligations, lay within the police power of the state (Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 78 Law. Ed. 413). Moreover, this Court has repeatedly held that Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32 have tolled or suspended the running of the Statute of Limitations from March 10, 1945 to July 26, 1948.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This case was begun in the Municipal Court of Manila on August 28, 1953. Its purpose is to recover, from defendant Chua Tua Hian, the sum of P1,287.88, with interest and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff, the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., having secured judgment in its favor, the defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which, in due course, rendered a decision holding that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, and, accordingly, dismissing the complaint, without pronouncement as to costs. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff, upon the ground that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. "The trial court erred in holding that the debt moratorium laws did not suspend the Statute of Limitations.

2. "The trial court erred in holding that the letter, dated September 30, 1948, of the defendant-appellee, thru his counsel, did not interrupt the Statute of Limitations.

3. "The trial court erred in holding that plaintiffs-appellant’s cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is not disputed that on June 10, 1941, defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note, in the sum of P2,252.32, representing the balance of the price of a new Nash 600, Sedan automobile, purchased and received by the defendant from the plaintiff; that, pursuant to said promissory note, said sum of P2,252.32 is payable, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, in specified semi-monthly installments, ranging from P75.38 to P85.50 each, from June 25, 1941 to August 10, 1942, with the understanding that, in the event of default in the payment of any installment, the whole balance then outstanding would become due and demandable, with compounded interest, at the same rate, and, also, in case of non-payment of said balance, with attorney’s fees, equivalent to 25 per cent of the principal obligation, by way of penalty; that, as of December 9, 1941, there was, under said promissory note, an unpaid balance of P1,287.88, with interest thereon, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, which — according to the stipulation of facts submitted by both parties — "the defendant failed to pay in spite of plaintiff’s demands, the last of which was made sometime between 1948 and 1953" ; and that, in reply to one of such demands, defendant’s counsel wrote to plaintiff the letter Exhibit B, dated September 30, 1948, stating that said defendant had "filed his claim for the loss of the vehicle which he took from your goodselves, with the War Damage Commission, and that said claim is now under adjustment," and requesting that he be given "a little more time to meet his obligation with you," with the assurance "that he will pay you as soon as he may conveniently do so."cralaw virtua1aw library

The only question for determination in this appeal is whether plaintiff’s action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, the complaint herein having been filed on August 28, 1953, or eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and eighteen (18) days after defendant had defaulted in the payment of the installment that fell due on December 10, 1941. Plaintiff maintains the negative view upon the ground: (a) that the running of the Statute of Limitation of Actions was suspended from March 10, 1945 1 to July 26, 1948 2; and (b) that the period within which to enforce plaintiff’s claim has been renewed in consequence of the acknowledgment made in said letter Exhibit B.

The lower court overruled plaintiff’s pretense upon the theory that "the debt moratorium, which had already been held unconstitutional" - referring evidently to our decision in Rutter v. Esteban (93 Phil., 68, 49 Off. Gaz., 1814) — "did not likewise suspend the Statute of Limitations." As we said in Pacific Commercial Co. v. Venancio H. Aquino (100 Phil., 961).

"In Rutter v. Esteban, 49 Off. Gaz., 1807, this Court did not declare the moratorium act (Rep. Act No. 342) as unconstitutional and void ab initio; on the contrary, it recognized that the enactment of a moratorium law, suspending for a reasonable period the remedies for the enforcement of obligations, lay within the police power of the state (Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 78 Law. Ed. 413). What we actually ruled in the Rutter case was —

‘That the continued operation and enforcement of Republic Act No. 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive, and should not be prolonged a minute longer . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover, we have repeatedly held (Gaudencio Day v. Court of First Instance Et. Al., 94 Phil., 816; A. Santos Vda. de Montilla v. Pacific Commercial Co., 98 Phil., 133; Manila Motor Co. v. Flores, 99 Phil., 738, 52 Off. Gaz., 5804; Manila Motor Co. v. Fernandez, 99 Phil., 782, 52 Off. Gaz., 6883; Rio y Compañia v. Sandoval, 100 Phil., 407; Pacific Commercial Co. v. Aquino, supra; Philippine National Bank v. J. A. de Aboitiz, L-9500, April 11, 1967), that Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32 have tolled or suspended, the running of the Status of Limitations, from March 10, 1945 to July 26, 1948, or for a period of two (2) years, four (4) months and sixteen (16) days, and we find no reason to depart from this view. Deducting said period from that which transpired from December 10, 1941 to August 28, 1953, it results that less than ten (10) years had elapsed from the accrual of plaintiff’s cause of action to the institution of the present case.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered sentencing defendant Chua Tua Hian to pay plaintiff Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., the sum of P1,287.88, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from December 10, 1941, compounded, yearly, at the same rate, until fully paid, plus 25 per cent of said principal obligation, or P421.97, as attorney’s fees, with costs against said Defendant-Appellee.

It is so ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, .JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. When the President issued Executive Order No. 32 amending Executive Order No. 25, dated November 18, 1944, so as to suspend temporarily "pending action by the Commonwealth Government," the "enforcement of payment of all debts and other monetary obligations payable within the Philippines," except those entered into in areas declared "freed from enemy occupation and control."

2. Date of approval and effectivity of Republic Act No. 342, lifting the moratorium declared in said Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 32, "in so far as it affects prewar obligations", except as regards "debts and other monetary obligations payable by private parties within the Philippines originally incurred or contracted before December 8, 1941, and still remaining unpaid," which "shall not be due and demandable for a period of eight (8) years from and after settlement of the war damage claim of the debtor by the United States Philippines War Damage Commission."




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452