ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137260. April 14, 1990]

FASCON (MANILA) INC. vs. PAC RIM REALTY & DEV. CORP.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 14, 1999.

G.R. No. 137260 (Fascon [Manila] Inc. vs. Pac Rim Realty & Development Corporation.)

Herein respondents Pac Rim Realty ("Pac Rim") filed a complaint in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court for rescission of contract with damages against petitioner ("Fascon") alleging inter alia that Pac Rim bought from Fascon a bulldozer represented and warranted by Fascon as "newly reconditioned, newly paint (sic), with new battery" for the amount of P928,500.00, as evidenced by a deed of sale; that barely 48 hours from delivery, the bulldozer malfunctioned and continued to malfunction despite attempts by Facson to repair it, causing delay to Pac Rim's real estate projects; that Pac Rim incurred actual damages representing the amount spent to lease another bulldozer, that Pac Rim suffered damages for the delayed project.

Fascon filed its answer alleging inter alia that Pac Rim knew that the bulldozer was a newly-reconditioned unit sold at a low price; that the bulldozer was in good running condition when it was tested by Pac Rim's mechanic before the sale; that the deed of sale did not have any express or written warranty where Fascon would answer for patent defects of the reconditioned bulldozer.

The RTC ruled for PAC RIM, decreeing the rescission of the deed of sale and awarding actual damages plus attorney's fees. The Regional Trial Court made the following findings of fact:

A perusal of the Deed of Sale reveals that the defendant [Fascon] assured the performance of the subject bulldozer for three (3) months, parts and labor (Exhibit "B-2"). This warranty albeit not embodied in the body of the deed of sale forms part and parcel thereof. It was in fact preceded by e previous offer to extend warranty on the subject bulldozer for two months, minor parts only (Exhibit "B-2" to "B-3"). Suffice it also to say that the defendant [Fascon] failed to disprove the existence of the express warranty in the deed of sale. Its bare assertion that it does not offer warranty to sale of second-hand articles just like other companies engaged in the same business does not hold water. Rather, that it initiated repairs on the bulldozer four times further disclose defendant's acknowledgment of the warranty stipulation in the deed of sale.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification that the award for attorney's fees was deleted.

In this petition, Fascon raises these two issues:

I.

The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely misappreciated and misapprehended the facts and the evidence when it held that petitioner failed to disprove the existence of the express warranty in the deed of sale, despite the fact that petitioner does not offer warranties to sale of second hand reconditioned heavy equipments and that the alleged warranty in the deed of ale was merely an insertion made by the respondent and was not part of the agreement between the parties herein.

II.

The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in ordering the petitioner to pay respondent the amount of P99,575.00 for alleged rentals paid by the respondent for the lease of another bulldozer despite the fact that petitioner was not responsible for the breakdown of the subject bulldozer.

The first issue involves the determination of facts - "the existence of warranty in the deed of sale of second-hand equipment and that the alleged warranty was "merely an insertion."

Fascon fails to show why this Court should exception to the rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality, by this Court. (De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 299 [1996], citing cases) We see no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the courts a quo that the deed of sale carried the notation, "Note: Three months guarantee, parts and labor," which was an express warranty.

Furthermore, We see no reversible error in the appellate court's holding citing Moles v. Intermediate Appellate Court (169 SCRA 777 [1989]), that an express warranty can be made by and also be binding on the seller even in the sale of a secondhand article.

Anent the second error raised, we likewise see no reversible error in the appellate court's ruling that "plaintiff [Pac Rim] had no recourse but to lease another bulldozer to finish the job, hence, it is just proper that defendant [Fascon] pay the amount for the rentals." We see that the amount of P99,575.00 was not without basis in evidence. The trial court in its decision had listed the statements of account presented by Pac Rim for the substitute bulldozer's lease. The appellate court noted that "this amount was fully supported by several statements of accounts (Exhibits 'L-27 to 'L-30)."

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition, there being no reversible error in the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE