Ledesma v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jaime Ledesma entered into a Trust Receipt Agreement No. 7389 with private respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) on April 1, 1974. Petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. Procedural History: RCBC filed a case (Case No. 38287) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal on August 21, 1980, to enforce the agreement, but it was dismissed without prejudice on March 3, 1981, due to inability to serve summons. RCBC filed a second case (Civil Case No. 88-2572) on December 2, 1988, in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 133, on the same cause of action. Petitioner's motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription was denied. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of RCBC, ordering petitioner to pay P168,000.00 with interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 29406, and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied. He then filed the present motion for reconsideration, contending that the second action had prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the second civil action filed by the private respondent had prescribed. Whether the filing of a judicial action interrupts or renews the prescriptive period.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. The Supreme Court affirmed its resolution denying the petition for review on certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The second action filed by RCBC was not barred by prescription because the prescriptive period was interrupted by the first judicial action. On the issue of interruption versus renewal of the prescriptive period: Article 1155 of the Civil Code provides that the prescription of actions is interrupted by the filing of an action, a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, or a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. The effect of interruption, whether by judicial action, extrajudicial demand, or acknowledgment of debt, is to renew the obligation and cause the prescriptive period to run anew from the date of the interruption. This interpretation is consistent with the rulings in Overseas Bank of Manila vs. Geraldez, et al. and Philippine National Railways vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. The contention that a judicial action merely tolls the prescriptive period, while extrajudicial demands and acknowledgments interrupt it, leads to a bifurcated and irrational interpretation of Article 1155. The cited cases of Vda. de Nator and Fulton Insurance Co. did not sufficiently support this thesis, with Fulton even deeming the issue moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a judicial action, similar to a written extrajudicial demand or a written acknowledgment of debt, interrupts the prescriptive period, causing the full period to commence anew from the cessation of the interruption.