Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
G.R. No. 145483. November 19, 2004.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
164
thereof are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting
parties, the literal meaning shall control.—In determining whether time is
of the essence in a contract, the ultimate criterion is the actual or apparent
intention of the parties and before time may be so regarded by a court, there
must be a sufficient manifestation, either in the contract itself or the
surrounding circumstances of that intention. Petitioner insists that although
its purchase orders did not specify the dates when the cylinder liners were
supposed to be delivered, nevertheless, respondent should abide by the term
of delivery appearing on the quotation it submitted to petitioner. Petitioner
theorizes that the quotation embodied the offer from respondent while the
purchase order represented its (petitioner’s) acceptance of the proposed
terms of the contract of sale. Thus, petitioner is of the view that these two
documents “cannot be taken separately as if there were two distinct
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
165
Same; When the time of delivery is not fixed or is stated in general and
indefinite terms, time is not of the essence of the contract.— We find the
case of Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. v. Matti, instructive. There, we held that—
When the time of delivery is not fixed or is stated in general and indefinite
terms, time is not of the essence of the contract. . . . In such cases, the
delivery must be made within a reasonable time. The law implies, however,
that if no time is fixed, delivery shall be made within a reasonable time, in
the absence of anything to show that an immediate delivery intended. . . .
Same; Even where time is of the essence, a breach of the contract in
that respect by one of the parties may be waived by the other party’s
subsequently treating the contract as still in force.—As an aside, let it be
underscored that “[e]ven where time is of the essence, a breach of the
contract in that respect by one of the parties may be waived by the other
party’s subsequently treating the contract as still in force.” Petitioner’s
receipt of the cylinder liners when they were delivered to its warehouse on
20 April 1990 clearly indicates that it considered the contract of sale to be
still subsisting up to that time. Indeed, had the contract of sale been
cancelled already as claimed by petitioner, it no longer had any business
receiving the cylinder liners even if said receipt was “subject to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
166
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
when the law itself requires that he should exercise due diligence to
minimize its own damages.
167
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
1
This is a petition for review seeking to set aside the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 54334 and its Resolution
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The factual antecedents of this case are as follows:
Petitioner Lorenzo Shipping Corporation is a domestic
corporation engaged in coastwise shipping. It used to own the cargo
vessel M/V Dadiangas Express.
Upon the other hand, respondent BJ Marthel International, Inc.
is a business entity engaged in trading, marketing, and selling of
various industrial commodities. It is also an importer and distributor
of different brands of engines and spare parts.
From 1987 up to the institution of this case, respondent supplied
petitioner with spare parts for the latter’s marine engines. Sometime
in 1989, petitioner asked respondent for a quotation for various
machine parts. Acceding to this request, respondent furnished
2
petitioner with a formal quotation, thus:
_______________
168
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
Petitioner
3
thereafter issued to respondent Purchase Order No.
13839, dated 02 November 1989, for the procurement of one set of
cylinder liner, valued at P477,000, to be used for M/V Dadiangas
Express. The purchase order was co-signed by Jose Go, Jr.,
petitioner’s vice-president, and Henry Pajarillo. Quoted hereunder is
the pertinent portion of the purchase order:
_______________
169
Instead of paying the 25% down payment for the first cylinder4 liner,
petitioner issued in favor of respondent ten post-dated checks to be
drawn against the former’s account with Allied Banking
Corporation. The checks were supposed to represent the full
payment of the aforementioned cylinder liner.
5
Subsequently, petitioner issued Purchase Order No. 14011, dated
15 January 1990, for yet another unit of cylinder liner. This purchase
order stated the term of payment to be “25% upon delivery, balance
6
payable in 5 bi-monthly equal installment[s].” Like the purchase
order of 02 November 1989, the second purchase order did not state
the date of the cylinder liner’s delivery.
On 26 January 1990, respondent deposited petitioner’s check that
was postdated 18 January 1990, however, the same was dishonored
by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds. The remaining
nine postdated checks were eventually returned by respondent to
petitioner.
The parties presented disparate accounts of what happened to the
check which was previously dishonored. Petitioner claimed that it
replaced said check with a good one, the proceeds of which were
applied to its other obligation to respondent. For its part, respondent
insisted that it returned said postdated check to petitioner.
Respondent thereafter placed the order for the two cylinder liners
with its principal in Japan, Daiei Sangyo Co. Ltd., by opening a
letter of credit on 23 February 1990 under its own name with the
First Interstate Bank of Tokyo.
_______________
4 Exhibits “4-A” to “4-J” for petitioner; Exhibits “E” to “E-9” for respondent;
Records, pp. 248-250.
5 Exhibit “5” for petitioner; Exhibit “C” for respondent; Records, p. 7.
6 Ibid.
170
_______________
171
_______________
172
_______________
173
The Court of Appeals also held that respondent could not have
incurred delay in the delivery of cylinder liners as no demand,
judicial or extrajudicial, was made by respondent upon petitioner in
contravention of the express provision of Article 1169 of the Civil
Code which provides:
_______________
174
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
175
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
34 Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 117660, 18
December 2000, 348 SCRA 450.
35 Golden Diamond, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131436, 31 May 2000, 332
SCRA 605.
36 Carceller v. Court of Appeals and State Investments Houses, Inc., G.R. No.
124791, 10 February 1999, 302 SCRA 718, 725.
176
_______________
37 G.R. No. 138113, 17 October 2000, 343 SCRA 335, 346, citing Ang Yu
Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109125, 02 December 1994, 238 SCRA 602.
38 Article 1324 of the Civil Code states: “When the offerer has allowed the offeree
a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance
by communicating such with-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
177
_______________
178
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
179
_______________
180
Relative to the above discussion, we find the case of Smith, Bell &
43
Co., Ltd. v. Matti, instructive. There, we held that—
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
When the time of delivery is not fixed or is stated in general and indefinite
terms, time is not of the essence of the contract. . . .
In such cases, the delivery must be made within a reasonable time.
The law implies, however, that if no time is fixed, delivery shall be made
within a reasonable time, in the absence of anything to show that an
immediate delivery intended. . . .
We also find significant the fact that while petitioner alleges that the
cylinder liners were to be used for dry dock repair and maintenance
of its M/V Dadiangas Express between the later part of December
1989 to early January 1990, the record is bereft of any indication
that respondent was aware of such fact. The failure of petitioner to
notify respondent of said date is fatal to its claim that time was of
the essence in the subject contracts of sale.
In addition, we quote, with approval, the keen observation of the
Court of Appeals:
. . . It must be noted that in the purchase orders issued by the appellee, dated
November 2, 1989 and January 15, 1990, no specific date of delivery was
indicated therein. If time was really of the essence as claimed by the
appellee, they should have stated the same in the said purchase orders, and
not merely relied on the quotation issued by the appellant considering the
lapse of time between the quotation issued by the appellant and the purchase
orders of the appellee.
In the instant case, the appellee should have provided for an allowance of
time and made the purchase order earlier if indeed the said cylinder liner
was necessary for the repair of the vessel scheduled on the first week of
January, 1990. In fact, the appellee should have cancelled the first purchase
order when the cylinder liner was not delivered on the date it now says was
necessary. Instead it issued another purchase order for the second set of
cylinder liner. This
_______________
181
fact negates appellee’s claim that time was indeed of the essence in the
44
consummation of the contract of sale between the parties.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
182
The law explicitly gives either party the right to rescind the contract
only upon the
48
failure of the other to perform the obligation assumed
thereunder. The right, however, is not an unbridled one. This Court 49
in the case of University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles,
speaking through the eminent civilist Justice J.B.L. Reyes, exhorts:
_______________
183
ble party will be sentenced to damages; in the contrary case, the resolution
will be affirmed, and the consequent indemnity awarded to the party
prejudiced. (Emphasis supplied)
In other words, the party who deems the contract violated may consider
it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action,
but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final judgment of the
corresponding court that will conclusively and finally settle whether the
action taken was or was not correct in law. But the law definitely does not
require that the contracting party who believes itself injured must first file
suit and wait for a judgment before taking extrajudicial steps to protect its
interest. Otherwise, the party injured by the other’s breach will have to
passively sit and watch its damages accumulate during the pendency of the
suit until the final judgment of rescission is rendered when the law itself
requires that he should exercise due diligence to minimize its own
50
damages.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/19
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
50 Id., at p. 107.
184
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016113876d39f90bd096003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19