Dino Grageda v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the payment for abaca finished products. Petitioner Leda Dino Grageda, owner and manager of Sorsogon Home Enterprises, ordered 500 sets of rectangular and 500 sets of square pyrex trays from private respondent Francisco Montallana, Jr. The agreed price was P4.50 per set. Montallana delivered various quantities of these trays between April 27, 1975, and May 27, 1975, with the deliveries being received by Grageda's caretaker, co-petitioner Teresita Montilla. Montallana demanded payment, but Grageda requested extensions. Ultimately, Grageda rejected the delivered items, claiming they were defective and not in accordance with the agreed sample, which stipulated steel edging, whereas the delivered items allegedly had tin plate edging. 2. Procedural History: The private respondent filed a complaint for a sum of money against the petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court of Daraga, Albay. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the private respondent, holding the petitioners civilly liable for impliedly accepting the deliveries, pursuant to Article 1585 of the Civil Code. This decision was reversed by the Court of First Instance of Albay. The private respondent appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which initially affirmed the Regional Trial Court's decision. However, upon a motion for reconsideration, the IAC reversed its own decision and reinstated the Municipal Trial Court's ruling, affirming the judgment against the petitioners. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Leda Dino Grageda and Teresita Montilla, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the Resolution dated May 23, 1984, of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The core issue raised in the petition is whether there was a valid acceptance of the delivered goods or, conversely, whether the rejection of the goods was made seasonably and in accordance with the law. The petitioners argue that they properly rejected the defective items within a reasonable time, while the appellate court found their rejection to be unduly delayed, thus constituting an implied acceptance.
Issue(s)
Whether the rejection of the delivered goods was made seasonably. Whether the petitioners impliedly accepted the delivered goods.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the rejection of the delivered goods was made seasonably: The Court agreed with the trial court's observation that the delay in the advice or notice of rejection was almost two (2) months after receipt, which was considered too late. The Municipal Trial Court expressed grave doubts as to whether petitioner Grageda had advised or informed the private respondent of the rejection within the month of May 1975, as alleged, due to the private respondent's vehement denial and the lack of corroboration from the caretaker. It was concluded that the information and advice of rejection were only certain on June 13, 1975, and June 20, 1975. The Court reiterated the principle that a buyer is accorded a reasonable opportunity to examine goods to ascertain conformity with the contract, but this opportunity must be availed of within a reasonable time to prevent undue delay or prejudice to the seller. The delay in this case was deemed unreasonable. On the issue of whether the petitioners impliedly accepted the delivered goods: The Court applied Article 1585 of the New Civil Code, which provides that a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, the buyer retains the goods without intimating to the seller that they have been rejected. The evidence clearly showed that the petitioners retained possession of the abaca goods for practically a month and almost two months by June 20, 1975, or until the case was filed on June 27, 1975, without intimating their rejection to the seller within a reasonable time. This retention for a month or more was considered a waiver of the defendants' right to reject the goods and an implied acceptance. The findings of fact of the trial judge, which were respected on appeal, supported this conclusion.
Main Doctrine
A buyer is deemed to have accepted goods if, after the lapse of a reasonable time, they are retained without intimating to the seller that they have been rejected. Such retention for a month or more amounts to a waiver of the right to reject.