LAW ON SALES | CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES CORP. V. CA 133 SCRA 567, DECEMBER 19, 1984

CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES CORP. V. CA

133 SCRA 567, DECEMBER 19, 1984

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them.

 

FACTS

 

Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the assembling and 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 evidence is clear that Negros Navigation could not produce the merchandise motor vehicles and other automotive products from Petitioner nor ascertain its whereabouts at the time Sambok Bacolod, was ready to take delivery. Despite this, petitioner failed to comply with the conditions precedent to the filing of a judicial action against Negros Navigation.

 

It was only four years later when a warehouseman of Negros Navigation found in their off-shore bodega, parts of the shipment in question, but already deteriorated and valueless. Sambok, Motors refused to accept the shipment from Negros Navigation four years after shipment.

 

ISSUE

Whether Sambok can be held liable for not accepting or refusing to accept the shipment from Negros Navigation four years after shipment.

 

RULING

No.

 

The court held that where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them.

 

 

Here, the court held that 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 failed to comply with the conditions precedent to the filing of a judicial action. Thus, in the last analysis, it is petitioner that must shoulder the resulting loss. The general rule that before delivery, the risk of loss is borne by the seller who is still the owner, under the principle of “res perit domino”, is applicable in petitioner’s case. Under the circumstances, Sambok, Bacolod, cannot be faulted for not accepting or refusing to accept the shipment from Negros Navigation four years after shipment since it has already detoriated and becomes valueless.https://www.instagram.com/lawyalstudent/

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147