0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
151 vizualizări1 pagină
1) Emilio filed a complaint against Pablito in 1995 for breach of oral contract. Pablito filed motions to dismiss which were denied. Pablito then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals in 2001.
2) In 2001, Emilio filed a motion to dismiss his own complaint with the regional trial court due to the lengthy proceedings in the Court of Appeals. The regional trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
3) Emilio then filed a new complaint against Pablito in 2002. Pablito argued this new complaint was time-barred under the statute of limitations. However, the Supreme Court ruled that prescription did not apply because Emilio continuously pursued his claim
1) Emilio filed a complaint against Pablito in 1995 for breach of oral contract. Pablito filed motions to dismiss which were denied. Pablito then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals in 2001.
2) In 2001, Emilio filed a motion to dismiss his own complaint with the regional trial court due to the lengthy proceedings in the Court of Appeals. The regional trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
3) Emilio then filed a new complaint against Pablito in 2002. Pablito argued this new complaint was time-barred under the statute of limitations. However, the Supreme Court ruled that prescription did not apply because Emilio continuously pursued his claim
1) Emilio filed a complaint against Pablito in 1995 for breach of oral contract. Pablito filed motions to dismiss which were denied. Pablito then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals in 2001.
2) In 2001, Emilio filed a motion to dismiss his own complaint with the regional trial court due to the lengthy proceedings in the Court of Appeals. The regional trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
3) Emilio then filed a new complaint against Pablito in 2002. Pablito argued this new complaint was time-barred under the statute of limitations. However, the Supreme Court ruled that prescription did not apply because Emilio continuously pursued his claim
GR No 165552 23 January 2007 On 18 December 1995, Emilio filed with the Makati RTC a complaint for sum of money based upon an oral contract against Pablito. Pablito then filed motion to dismiss on the grounds that there are defects in Emilios complaint. Emilio amended his complaint. Subsequently, the Makati RTC admitted the amended complaint and denied the motion to dismiss. Pablito then filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) which was also denied by the Makati RTC. This prompted Pablito to file before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, which remained pending for six years. Emilio then filed before the Makati RTC a motion to dismiss his complaint because he felt that the petition before the CA would be resolved indefinitely. On 1 August 2001, the Makati RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On 23 August 2001, Emilio filed before the CA a manifestation that his complaint was dismissed without prejudice before the Makati RTC. However, only after a year did the CA directed Pablito to file a comment on Emilios manifestation. After which, the CA rendered a decision dismissing Pablitos petition. On 23 September 2002, Emilio filed anew before the Quezon City RTC a complaint for sum of money against Pablito. Pablito then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription considering that under Article 1145 of the Civil Code, actions based on oral contracts prescribe in six years. He maintains that from August 14, 1995, when he received respondents last letter of demand, to September 23, 2002, when respondent filed before the QC RTC, more than seven years had elapsed; and that the first case before the Makati RTC, did not interrupt the running of the period. The RTC denied his motion to dismiss as well as his MR. The same happened before the CA, his petition was dismissed and his MR was denied ruling. merit.
Hence, Pablito now raises that the CA erred in its
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacks The Civil Code provides:
ART. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse
of time fixed by law. xxx ART. 1145. The following actions must be commenced within six years:
(1) Upon an oral-contract
(2) Upon a quasi-contract. xxx ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is written extra-judicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor. The prescription of an action refers to the time within which an action must be brought after the right of action has accrued. The prescriptive statutes serve to protect those who are diligent and vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. The rationale behind the prescription of actions is to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time, thus surprising the parties or their representatives when the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of the witnesses.
Prescription as understood and used
in this jurisdiction does not simply mean a mere lapse of time. Rather, there must be a categorical showing that due to plaintiffs negligence, inaction, lack of interest, or intent to abandon a lawful claim or cause of action, no action whatsoever was taken, thus allowing the statute of limitations to bar any subsequent suit. Pabitos invocation of prescription is misplaced. On 18 December 1995, Emilio initially filed with Makati RTC the complaint. While it was later dismissed without prejudice to his own motion, the dismissal sought was not for the purpose of voluntarily abandoning his claim. Emilios intention was to expedite the enforcement of his rights. Understandably, he felt frustrated at the snails pace at which his case was moving. The petition filed by Pablito before the CA remained pending for six years. Further, Emilio acted swiftly after the dismissal of his case without prejudice by the Makati RTC. He immediately filed with the CA a manifestation that the Makati RTC case was dismissed. But the CA acted on his manifestation only after one year. This delay, beyond Emilios control, in turn further caused delay in the filing of his new complaint with the Quezon City RTC. Clearly, there was no inaction or lack of interest on his part. The statute of limitations was devised to operate primarily against those who slept on their rights and not against those desirous to act but could not do so for causes beyond their control.