Ouano Arrastre Service, Inc. vs Aleanor, et. al. GR No 97664, October 10, 1991
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
Private respondent
International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("IPI") filed a complaint before
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City against Mercantile Insurance Company,
Inc. ("Mercantile") and petitioner Ouano Arrastre Service, Inc.
("OASI") for replacement of certain equipment imported by IPI which
were insured by Mercantile but were lost on arrival in Cebu City, allegedly
because of mishandling by petitioner OASI.
On 12 January 1990, after
trial which Atty. Manalo handled for OASI, the trial court rendered a decision
holding Mercantile and petitioner OASI jointly and severally liable for the
cost of replacement of the damaged equipment plus damages, totaling P
435,000.00.
Only Mercantile appealed from
the decision.
On 19 June 1990, IPI filed a
motion for execution of the decision against petitioner OASI which public
respondent judge granted on 25 June 1990.
On 26 June 1990 petitioner's
counsel, through Atty. Catipay of the Cebu Branch of the LSA, filed a notice of
appeal veclaiming that the decision was "mistakenly sent" by the
trial court to the law firm's Head Office in Makati.
On 27 June 1990, petitioner,
through the same counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
granting the writ of execution alleging that: (1) the failure seasonably to
file an appeal was due to excusable neglect and slight "oversight"
claiming that there was miscommunication between LSA-Cebu and LSA main office
as to who would file the notice of appeal; and (2) Mercantile's timely notice
of appeal should benefit petitioner OASI, a solidary co-debtor.
On 2 July 1990, public respondent
judge denied OASI's motion for reconsideration declaring that the appeal cannot
be given due course for lack of merit and ordered that the writ of execution be
enforced.
On appeal, the Court of
Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal upon the grounds that: (1) there had been
a valid service of the decision; (2) the decision had become final and
executory as to petitioner OASI; and (3) Mercantile's appeal does not inure to
the benefit of petitioner as they do not share common defenses.
ISSUE
Whether or not CA erred in ruling that the undisputed
timely appeal taken by Mercantile Insurance does not inure the benefit of
petitioner, on the ground that they do not share common defense and is contrary
to the provision of Article 1222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
RULING
No, CA did not err in ruling that the undisputed
timely appeal taken by Mercantile Insurance does not inure the benefit of
petitioner, on the ground that they do not share common defense.
Under the law (Art 1222), a solidary debtor may, in
actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived
from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or
pertain to his own share. With respect to thise which personally belong to the
others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for
which the latter are responsible.
In this case, the petition lacks merit. Ouano has only
itself to blame. It allowed the period for appeal to lapse without appealing.
Petitioner also argues that under the Civil Code, a solidary co-debtor can
raise the defenses personal to his co-debtor and that, therefore, Ouano should
be exempt from paying the portion of the judgment corresponding to Mercantile.
SC has rejected a similar claim made to delay execution of trial court’s
decision. Moreover, Ouano argues that defenses personal to co-debtors are
available to the other co-debtors because “the rights and liabilities of the
parties are so interwoven and dependent on each other, as to be inseparable”,
i.e., the rights and liabilities to be “interwoven” in their defenses must be
“similar”. Ouano’s and Mercantile’s defenses actually conflict with each other.
Ouano claims that the goods were received by it from the carrier vessel in bad
conditions. Mercantile, upon the other hand, maintains that the goods did not
sustain any damage or loss during the voyage. Furthermore, Mercantile claims
that, in any case, the insurance contract with IPI has already lapsed, a defense
with Ouano, as the arrastre company responsible for the damage, cannot invoke
tp avoid liability. Finally, failing to appeal, Ouano effectively waived any
right if might have had to assert, as against the judgment creditor, any
defense pertaining to Mercantile. In other wirds, Ouano by its own act or
inaction, is no longer in a position to benefit from the provision of Article
1222.
No comments:
Post a Comment