G.R. No. L-11381. April 28, 1958

This is an appeal from a  decision of  the Court of First Instance  of Manila dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of prescription.

It appears that on various dates from January 19, 1949 to March 28, 1950,  appellant, a  domestic corporation engaged in importing and selling  meat and  meat products in the City of Manila,  paid to  said City  inspection fees of the total amount of P3,553.33 levied under  Ordinance No. 2991 of said City, approved on November  23,  1946; that on January 11,1951, the Secretary of Justice rendered an  opinion  declaring the  said ordinance void as beyond the power of the  City to enact, and in deference apparently to said opinion, the City, on October 31, 1952,  approved Ordinance No. 3538, authorizing the refund in full  of all meat inspection fees paid under  Ordinance No.  2991, and appropriating funds for the  purpose; that on November 20, 1952,  appellant filed its claim  with the City Treasurer for the refund of the inspection  fees paid by it, but as the claim was disallowed, appellant on January 6, 1955 filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the City of Manila and the City Treasurer for the recovery of the amount claimed.

Answering the  complaint, the  defendants  set  up  the defense that the  inspection fees  sought  to be  recovered were  paid voluntarily  and  without  any  protest and  that plaintiff’s action had  already prescribed.

Overruling the  defense that the fees were  paid  voluntarily without  protest, but  upholding the  defense  of  prescription,  the lower court, after trial, dismissed the  action.

Hence, this  appeal.

The appeal is meritorious.  This case is similar to  that of Wise & Co.,  Inc. vs. City  of Manila, et al. (101 Phil., 244; 54 Off.  Gaz.,  [14], 4245) where this Court declared that the cause of action for the recovery of inspection  fees paid  under Ordinance  No.  2991 accrued  on  October  31, 1952 when Ordinance  No.  3538,  authorizing  the  refund thereof,  was  enacted.  We there said:

“The other ground  of the motion to dismiss  that  the action is barred by the  statute  of limitations is not well  taken.’ The  complaint  alleges that Ordinance No. S53S,  appropriating funds  for and authorizing the refund of meat inspection fees illegally collected under Ordinance No.  2991, was enacted on  28 October  and approved on 31 October 1952.  Prom the last mentioned date, when the cause of action accrued, to  7 January 1955,  when the complaint in  the case was filed, only  two years,  two months and eight days  had elapsed. Hence, whether the prescriptive period  is six years under article  1145 of the new Civil Code, as  contended  by  the plaintiff, or four years  under  article 1146(1)  of  the new  Civil Code  or section 43, paragraph 3, of Act No. 190, as claimed by the defendants the action was  not barred by the  statute of limitations.”

From  the above  pronouncement  it   is clear  that  when plaintiff’s complaint was filed on January 6, 1955, its  action had not yet prescribed,

The decision  appealed  from must,  therefore be  as it is hereby, revoked, and  it  is ordered that judgment be rendered for  the refund of  the sum  of P3,553.33 claimed Araneta and  Uy  vs. Commonwealth Ins.  Co., et al. by plaintiff, with legal interest from the date of the filing of  the  complaint as therein prayed.  Without  special pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.  J., Bengzon,  Montemayor,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.