Artadi v. Chu Baco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellee Artadi & Co. filed an action to recover P7,101.43, alleged to be the balance of a running account between the plaintiff and the defendant-appellant Chu Baco. The defendant did not seriously deny the debt but claimed it was not yet due. Procedural History: The defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds of accident and surprise, but the record did not show if this motion was decided. The defendant did not move for a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence. The court below entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P7,101.43, with costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment, arguing that the findings of fact did not support the judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant had approved an account showing the balance and later signed an instrument for payment in installments of P600 monthly. The action was commenced on November 3, 1905.
Issue(s)
Whether the findings of fact support the judgment for the plaintiff. Whether the amount claimed was due at the time the action was commenced.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is reversed, without costs to either party in this court, and the case remanded for a new trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the findings of fact support the judgment for the plaintiff: The Supreme Court found that the judgment could not be sustained. The facts indicated that after October 21, 1905, the parties agreed that the defendant would pay the debt in installments of P600 per month. Since the action was commenced on November 3, 1905, at most only two installments could have become due by that date. Therefore, even if anything were recoverable under the complaint, it would be limited to these two installments. The court cited Compañía General de Tabacos vs. Araza to support the principle that recovery would be limited to due installments. On whether the amount claimed was due at the time the action was commenced: The defendant approved an account showing the balance and subsequently signed an instrument requiring payment in monthly installments of P600. While the defendant claimed the debt was not due, his approval of the account and the subsequent instrument indicated an acknowledgment of the debt. However, the agreement for monthly payments meant that the entire sum was not immediately due. The court noted that even if the parties failed to fix a period for maturity, the court could do so under Article 1128 of the Civil Code. Given the installment agreement, the full amount was not yet due when the suit was filed.
Main Doctrine
A judgment may not be sustained if the findings of fact do not support it, particularly when the action commenced before the maturity of all installments agreed upon for the payment of the debt.