LEDA DINO GRAGEDA AND TERESITA MONTILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND FRANCISCO MONTALLANA, JR., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review and reverse the Resolution dated May 23, 1984 of respondent
Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in AC G.R. No. CV-64223, which reversed its
previous decision^[1] for the
petitioners and affirmed the decision^[2]
of the Municipal Trial Court of Daraga, Albay in Civil Case No. 362, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“x x x In view of all the foregoing considerations, the
Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proven and established
not only by preponderance of evidence but by adequate evidence as well that he
is entitled to the relief prayed for in accordance with the aforecited
pertinent provisions of law and judgment is hereby rendered, ordering
defendants to pay jointly and severally unto the plaintiff the sum of P4,300.00 and P50.00 as litigation expenses and to pay the
costs.  No other pronouncement is made as
to other claims for damages for reasons of equity.  The compulsory counterclaim is hereby denied
and dismissed for lack of merit x x x.” (p. 51, Rollo)

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

Petitioner Grageda is the owner and manager of the Sorsogon Home Enterprises while private respondent is a
seller of abaca finished products.  On March 26, 1975, Grageda
ordered from private respondent 500 sets of rectangular (“bacbac“) pyrex
trays and 500 sets of square (“bacbac“)
pyrex trays with 3 measurements per sample with
handle, at P4.50 per set.  (Exhs. “A”,
“A-1”, “A-2”, “A-3”)

Prior to April 27, 1975,
private respondent delivered some of
the items ordered but they were outrightly
rejected.  After making the proper
corrections, private respondent made subsequent deliveries, to wit:

April
27, 1975 – (a) 
79 sets of pyrex trays “bacbac” with a total value of P750.00;

April
30, 1975 – (a)  70 sets of rectangular trays “bacbac” valued at P315.00;

May
1, 1975    – (a)  100 sets of rectangular trays “bacbac” and

(b)  100 sets of square trays “bacbac” with a total value of P900.00;

May 3, 1975    – (a)  270 sets of rectangular trays “bacbac” and

(b)  4 sets of square trays “bacbac” valued at P846.00; and

May
12, 1975  – 188 sets square trays;

May
27, 1975  – 136 sets of square trays “bacbac” valued at P612.00.

(p. 36, Rollo)

Said items were all received and duly
receipted for by Grageda’s caretaker, herein
co-petitioner Montilla.

On several occasions, private respondent demanded payment for the
total value of the deliveries but Grageda requested
for extensions of time within which to pay. 
Finally, on June 13, 1975,
private respondent sought the assistance of the Albay
PC Command and a confrontation was conducted between Grageda
and private respondent.  When pressed for
payment, Grageda ultimately said that she rejected
the items delivered by private respondent because they were defective.  Subsequently, Grageda
sent a letter dated June 20, 1975
to private respondent, to which a Nacida
certification dated June 23, 1975
was annexed (Exh. “6”), informing private
respondent of her rejection of the items delivered, and requesting for their
withdrawal from her bodega.  In
view of the foregoing, private respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money
against the petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court of Daraga,
Albay.

Grageda, on the other hand, claimed
that the rectangular and square “bacbac” pyrex trays delivered by the private respondent from April
27, 1975 until May 25, 1975 were not in accordance with the sample agreed upon
by and between them, which is that the edging or “pleje”
should be made of steel; that as early as May, 1975, she advised private respondent of her
rejection of the said items because their edgings were made of tin plates or of
inferior quality; that she demanded their withdrawal from her bodega but
despite repeated requests, private respondent refused to withdraw the same;
that she likewise informed private respondent of her rejection of the said
items at the confrontation with the police on June 13, 1975 and in her letter
dated June 20, 1975 (Exhs. “E”,
“E-1”) to which a certification of the Nacida
dated June 23, 1975 was annexed (Exh. “6”), stating therein that said items are inferior and cannot be exported.  In addition, Grageda
presented two (2) disinterested witnesses who testified that the items
delivered by private respondent were different from the samples desired by her.  (pp. 7-8, Rollo)

On
February 25, 1977, the Metropolitan
Trial Court rendered a decision in private respondent’s favor holding the
petitioner civilly liable to the private respondent for having impliedly
accepted the deliveries, pursuant to Article 1585 of the Civil Code.  Said decision was reversed by the Court of
First Instance of Albay (now Regional Trial
Court).  Private respondent appealed to
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision1 of the Regional
Trial Court.  On motion for
reconsideration, however, the Court of Appeals reversed its previous decision
and affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Hence,
this petition, raising the issue
of
whether or not there was an acceptance of the deliveries made,
or otherwise stated, whether or not there was a rejection seasonably made.

The petition is devoid of merit.

While it is true that
Article 1584 of the Civil Code accords Grageda (as
buyer) the right to a reasonable opportunity to examine the abaca “bacbac” goods to ascertain whether they are in
conformity with the contract, such opportunity to examine should be availed of
within a reasonable time in order that private respondent (as the seller) may
not be subjected to undue delay or prejudice in the payment of his raw
materials, workers and other damages which may be incurred due to the
deterioration of his products.

In this regard, the trial court found that the delay in the advice or notice of rejection was
almost two (2) months after receipt, hence, was rather too late.  In its decision dated February
25, 1977, the
Municipal Trial Court said:

“xxx There is no
clear, convincing and competent evidence that defendant Grageda
(petitioner herein) advised or informed plaintiff (private respondent herein)
even one or two weeks after the date of delivery, so that the Court entertains
grave and serious doubts as to whether defendant Grageda
really advised or informed plaintiff that the latter’s deliveries from April 27
are rejected, within the month of May, 1975 as alleged by her, in view of
plaintiff’s vehement denial.  Moreover,
said allegation is uncorroborated and not substantiated by her caretaker,
co-defendant Montilla, as to lead the Court to
believe that it was only on June 13, 1975 and on June 20, 1975, (Exhibit
“E”) that she really informed and advised, with certainty that his plaintiff’s
deliveries of 500 rectangular “bacbac”
trays and 500
square “bacbac” trays were rejected.  x x x”
(pp. 48-49, Rollo)

We agree with the trial court’s observations and conclusions
that:

“xxx The provisions of Article 1585 (New Civil Code) which provides, among others, that ‘the buyer is
deemed to have accepted them’, xxx, ‘when, after the lapse of a reasonable
time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has
rejected them’ is applicable in the instant case.  The evidence clearly and unmistakably shows
that the defendants retained possession of the abaca goods, subject matter in
this case, for practically a month and almost two (2) months on June 20, 1975
or until this case was filed on June 27, 1975, without intimating their
rejection to the supplier or seller, within a reasonable time xxx for which
reason such retention of the abaca “bacbac”
goods for a month or more already amounts to a waiver of defendants’ right to
reject acceptance and payment of the plaintiffs abaca “bacbac”
goods xxx.” (p. 50, Rollo)

Well settled is the rule that the findings of fact of the trial
judge are generally respected on appeal and We find no
cogent reason to disturb the same.

Premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, and Gancayco,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Desiderio P. Jurado
concurred in by Justices Porfirio V. Sison, Abdulwahid A. Bidin and Marcelino R. Veloso.

^[2]
Penned by Judge Ignacio S. Calleja.

1 Penned by Judge Romulo
P. Untalan