18) Virgilio Del Rosario Et Al., vs. Court of Appeals

Virgilio del Rosario et al., vs.
Court of Appeals and Metal Forming Corp o no contractual relationship with the Del Rosarios since the contract
G.R. No. 118325 | Jan. 29, 1997 for the purchase and installation of the roofing, upon which the
latter's claims were based, was actually entered into between it
Doctrine: Privity between plaintiff and defendant is not necessary before liability can and another person, Jesus M. Puno (an engineer identified as the
be imposed for breach of warranty given to the public Del Rosarios' contractor).
12. RTC: In favor of the Del Rosarios. liable for breach of its contract for the supply
Facts: and installation of the roofing materials in the Del Rosarios' residence.
1. MFC was engaged in the business of selling to the public roofing materials o there was privity of contract between the Del Rosarios and MFC;
known as 'Banawe' shingles or metal tiles. o Engineer Puno acted as MFC's agent in the signing of the
2. Through extensive advertisements in media and in its brochures, it made contracts for the supply and installation of the "Banawe" shingles;
representations respecting the durability of its tiles and the sturdiness of roofing o hence, the contract was between the Del Rosarios and that
installed in accordance with its particularly described method. company.
3. These representations included statements that the shingles are
"STRUCTURALLY SAFE AND STRONG" and that the "BANAWE METAL TILE 13. CA: No privity of contract between the Del Rosarios and MFC. Hence, Del
structure acts as a single unit against wind and storm pressure due to the Rosarios have no cause of action against MFC for the alleged breach of
strong hook action on its overlaps." warranty
4. After reading MFC's brochures and advertisements, the Del Rosario Spouses o contracts were signed by Engr. Puno – does not appear he
instructed their contractor, Engineer Puno, to use the "Banawe" shingles or represented Del Rosarios.
metal tiles in the roofing of their house then under construction. o No evidence that agency exists.
5. Pursuant to the Del Rosarios' instructions, Puno placed orders with MFC and o Relationship of Puno and Del Rosario is not clear from the records.
signed the pertinent contracts for the purchase of the shingles, accepted ISSUE: Whether privity between plaintiff and defendant is necessary before liability
deliveries thereof and signed corresponding invoices, and made payments for breach of warranty given to public may attach. (NO)
thereon with the spouses' funds.
6. Deliveries of the "Banawe" metal tiles or shingles were made by MFC's RATIO:
employees to the construction site of the Del Rosarios' residence; and 1. The privity between the parties is not a factor in determining MFC's liability for
installation of the metal tiles in the roof of the Del Rosario's house was made its workers' use of inferior materials and their defective installation of the
by MFC's workers. "Banawe" metal tiles in the roof of the latter's residence.
7. MFC acted in bad faith and/or with gross negligence in failing to deliver the
necessary accessories for the proper installation. 2. Where the seller, in bad faith and with gross negligence, infringed the express
8. As a result, barely two (2) months after completion of the installation of the roof warranty made by it to the general public in connection with a product brought
by MFC's workers, portions thereof were blown away by the winds of typhoon to and set up in the house of a customer who had relied on the warranty, and
"Ruping." thereby caused him considerable injury, the identity of the individual who
DTI: actually dealt with the manufacturer and asked the latter to make such delivery
o MCF misrepresented its product because "as the records showed," strong is of little moment.
winds actually blew off part of the structure/roof of the Del Rosario
Spouses and the same acted in parts (instead of as a single unit) when 3. In this case, MFC acted in bad faith with gross negligence since it used inferior
strong winds blew, a part remaining while another part was blown off. materials and assembling them in a manner contrary to its express
o MFC must pay an "administrative fine of P10,000.00" otherwise its representations. Moreover, they infringed the express warranty that the roofing
"business name and registration would be deemed suspended and its is sturdy, safe and strong because barely two months after its installation,
establishment closed until the fine was fully paid. typhoon ruping’s powerful winds blew off the roofs. Lastly, Del Rosarios heavily
9. OPRES and TC affirmed. MFC replaced and repaired the roof free of charge. relied on these representations made by MFC as shown in print materials and
However, MFC denied liability as to the damages incurred to the interior of the television ads. In such cases, the identity of the individual who actually dealt
house. with MFC and asked the latter to make such delivery and installation is of little
10. Hence, Sps. Del Rosario instituted a civil action against MFC for damages moment.
claiming that aside from the roof injury was also caused to its electrical wiring,
ceiling, fixtures, walls, wall paper, wood parquet flooring and furniture
11. MFC moved to dismiss the case for lack of cause of action.

18) Virgilio Del Rosario Et Al., vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18) Virgilio Del Rosario Et Al., vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

18) Virgilio Del Rosario Et Al., vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Virgilio del Rosario et al., vs.

You might also like