Azcona v. Pacific Commercial
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Jesus Azcona, a practicing physician and surgeon operating an X-Ray clinic, ordered a Fricke-Glasser X-Ray Dosimeter machine from defendant Pacific Commercial Company on January 5, 1933. He had previously ordered two similar machines which arrived with broken parts and were returned to the United States. The third machine was delivered, and Azcona executed a promissory note for P1,180 (part of the P1,300 purchase price) and made payments totaling P658.37. Azcona alleged the machine did not function properly and sought rescission of the contract and refund of payments. The defendant counterclaimed for the balance of P786.68 plus interest and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed Azcona's complaint and ordered him to pay the counterclaim. Azcona appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Azcona appealed, contending the lower court erred in finding the defendant not liable for the machine's malfunction, in dismissing his complaint and ordering him to pay the counterclaim, and in denying his motion for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant is liable for the Fricke-Glasser X-Ray Dosimeter machine not functioning properly. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and ordering him to pay the defendant's counterclaim. Whether the lower court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and ordering him to pay the defendant's counterclaim. The appeal was found to be without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of defendant's liability for the machine's malfunction: The Court held that the defendant was not liable for the machine not functioning properly. The plaintiff, a medical specialist with extensive experience in operating X-Ray machines and dosimeters, ordered the specific machine after obtaining information and having previously dealt with similar apparatus. The first two machines were returned due to broken parts upon arrival, and the third machine was delivered and accepted by the plaintiff. Crucially, the plaintiff executed a promissory note and made partial payments after receiving the third machine, indicating his acceptance of it as the machine he ordered. The Court cited Article 327 of the Code of Commerce, stating that if a sale is made by sample or known quality, the purchaser cannot refuse to receive the articles if they conform to the sample or quality. The plaintiff's actions, including accepting the machine and executing a promissory note, demonstrated that he considered the sale consummated. Promises made by individuals named Buckman and Becker to repair the machine were not binding on the defendant, as Buckman was not an employee and Becker lacked authority to bind the company in that manner, and the defendant never guaranteed the machine's proper functioning. On the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint and the order to pay the counterclaim: The Court found no error in the lower court's decision. The plaintiff's acceptance of the third dosimeter, evidenced by the execution of the promissory note (Exhibit C) and subsequent payments (Exhibit C-1), solidified the consummation of the sale. The Court distinguished this from the first two machines, which were returned before acceptance and payment of the balance. The plaintiff's expertise and prior knowledge of the machine, coupled with his voluntary actions after delivery, precluded him from rescinding the contract. The Court also noted that the sale was not made under trial (Article 1453 of the Civil Code) or with an unrestricted right to examine and rescind (Article 328 of the Code of Commerce), given the plaintiff's knowledge and the nature of the transaction. On the denial of the motion for a new trial: As the first two assignments of error were found to be without merit, the denial of the motion for a new trial, which was a consequence of these alleged errors, was also deemed correct. The Court concluded that the appeal was without merit and the judgment of the lower court was in accordance with law.
Main Doctrine
A buyer who accepts goods, especially after inspecting them and executing a promissory note for the balance, and who is an expert in the subject matter, cannot later rescind the contract for alleged defects, particularly when the sale is not made under a condition of trial or examination that allows unrestricted rescission.