Fenwick v. Pardo de Tavera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 4, 1930, the appellee obtained a judgment against the appellant for the sum of P1,400, with interest at twelve per centum per annum from February 11, 1929, until payment, plus costs. Procedural History: The judgment remained unpaid. On July 5, 1940, the appellant acknowledged the indebtedness and proposed to pay it in installments of P50 monthly starting August 16, 1940. On July 19, 1940, the appellee filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to revive the judgment. The trial court overruled the appellant's defense of prescription and rendered judgment in favor of the appellee. The Petition: The appellant appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the action to revive the judgment has prescribed. Whether the appeal is frivolous.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court with double costs. The Court found the appeal to be frivolous and without basis in fact or law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the action to revive the judgment has prescribed: The Court found no basis in fact or law for the defense of prescription. The appellant, as late as July 5, 1940, acknowledged the indebtedness and offered to pay it in installments. This acknowledgment and offer to pay constituted a waiver of the defense of prescription. The action was instituted on July 19, 1940, which was well within the period for revival, especially considering the acknowledgment. The Court reiterated that an acknowledgment of the debt can interrupt prescription or constitute a waiver of the defense. Therefore, the trial court correctly overruled the defense of prescription. On Whether the appeal is frivolous: The Court found the appeal to be frivolous, stating there was absolutely no basis in fact or in law for the defense of prescription. To discourage such appeals, the Court imposed double costs on the appellant, following its recent decision in Piñon vs. Lubuguin et al., G.R. No. 47805. This imposition of double costs serves as a deterrent against the filing of baseless appeals that clog the court's docket and waste judicial resources.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the revival of a judgment, holding that the acknowledgment of indebtedness and offer to pay in installments by the debtor constituted a waiver of the defense of prescription, and imposed double costs on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal.