Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 364 views

    Nutrimix Feeds Corporation v. CA GR 152219

    Uploaded by

    Ric Tan
    This case involves a dispute between Nutrimix Feeds Corporation and the Spouses Evangelista over payment for animal feeds and claims of defective feeds causing animal deaths. [1] The Evangelistas purchased feeds on credit from Nutrimix but their payment checks bounced. [2] Nutrimix sued for payment while the Evangelistas counter-sued claiming defective feeds killed their animals. [3] The court ruled Nutrimix was not liable for breach of warranty as the Evangelistas did not prove the feeds were defective when received from Nutrimix.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nutrimix Feeds Corporation v. CA GR 152219

    Uploaded by

    Ric Tan
    364 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Nutrimix Feeds Corporation and the Spouses Evangelista over payment for animal feeds and claims of defective feeds causing animal deaths. [1] The Evangelistas purchased feeds on credit from Nutrimix but their payment checks bounced. [2] Nutrimix sued for payment while the Evangelistas counter-sued claiming defective feeds killed their animals. [3] The court ruled Nutrimix was not liable for breach of warranty as the Evangelistas did not prove the feeds were defective when received from Nutrimix.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Nutrimix Feeds Corporation and the Spouses Evangelista over payment for animal feeds and claims of defective feeds causing animal deaths. [1] The Evangelistas purchased feeds on credit from Nutrimix but their payment checks bounced. [2] Nutrimix sued for payment while the Evangelistas counter-sued claiming defective feeds killed their animals. [3] The court ruled Nutrimix was not liable for breach of warranty as the Evangelistas did not prove the feeds were defective when received from Nutrimix.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    364 views2 pages

    Nutrimix Feeds Corporation v. CA GR 152219

    Uploaded by

    Ric Tan
    This case involves a dispute between Nutrimix Feeds Corporation and the Spouses Evangelista over payment for animal feeds and claims of defective feeds causing animal deaths. [1] The Evangelistas purchased feeds on credit from Nutrimix but their payment checks bounced. [2] Nutrimix sued for payment while the Evangelistas counter-sued claiming defective feeds killed their animals. [3] The court ruled Nutrimix was not liable for breach of warranty as the Evangelistas did not prove the feeds were defective when received from Nutrimix.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Nutrimix Feeds Corporation v.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 152219, 25 October 2004

    FACTS:
    On April 5, 1993, the Spouses Efren and Maura Evangelista, the respondents herein, started to directly
    procure various kinds of animal feeds from petitioner Nutrimix Feeds Corporation. The petitioner gave
    the respondents a credit period of thirty to forty-five days to postdate… checks to be issued in payment
    for the delivery of the feeds.

    When the above-mentioned checks were deposited at the petitioner’s depository bank, the same were,
    consequently, dishonored because respondent Maura Evangelista had already closed her account. On
    December 15, 1993, the petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, a complaint,
    docketed as Civil Case No. 1026-M-93, against the respondents for sum of money and damages with a
    prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary attachment.

    On January 19, 1994, the respondents also lodged a complaint for damages against the petitioner,
    docketed as Civil Case No. 49-M-94, for the untimely and unforeseen death of their animals supposedly
    effected by the adulterated animal feeds the petitioner sold to them.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Nutrimix is guilty of breach of warranty due to hidden defects.

    RULING:
    NO. The provisions on warranty against hidden defects are found in Articles 1561 and 1566 of the New
    Civil Code of the Philippines. A hidden defect is one which is unknown or could not have been known to
    the vendee. Under the law, the requisites to recover on account of hidden defects are as follows:

    a) the defect must be hidden;


    b) the defect must exist at the time the sale was made;
    c) the defect must ordinarily have been excluded from the contract;
    d) the defect, must be important (renders thing UNFIT or considerably decreases FITNESS);
    e) the action must be instituted within the statute of limitations

    In the sale of animal feeds, there is an implied warranty that it is reasonably fit and suitable to be used
    for the purpose which both parties contemplated. To be able to prove liability on the basis of breach of
    implied warranty, three things must be established by the respondents.

    The first is that they sustained injury because of the product; the second is that the injury occurred
    because the product was defective or unreasonably unsafe; and finally, the defect existed when the
    product left the hands of the petitioner. A manufacturer or seller of a product cannot be held liable for
    any damage allegedly caused by the product in the absence of any proof that the product in question
    was defective.

    The defect must be present upon the delivery or manufacture of the product; or when the product left
    the seller’s or manufacturer’s control; or when the product was sold to the purchaser; or the product
    must have reached the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition it was sold.
    Tracing the defect to the petitioner requires some evidence that there was no tampering with, or
    changing of the animal feeds. The nature of the animal feeds makes it necessarily difficult for the
    respondents to prove that the defect was existing when the product left the premises of the petitioner.

    You might also like