NUTRIMIX FEEDS CORP V. CA /CBR KING FACTS: In 1993, 1993, private private responde respondent nt spouses spouses Evang Evangeli elista sta procu procured red variou various s animal animal feeds feeds from petition petitioner er Nutrimix Nutrimix Feeds Feeds Corp. Corp. Initiall Initially, y, the spous spouses es were were good good payin paying g custo customer mers. s. Howev However, er, there there were were instan instance ces s when when they they failed to issue checks despite the delivery of goods. Consequently, the respondents respondents incurred incurred an aggregate unsettled account with Nutrimix amountin amounting g to P766,151 P766,151.. When the checks checks were were depos deposite ited d by the petiti petition oner, er, the the same same were were dish dishono onored red (close (closed d accou account) nt).. Despi Despite te seve severa rall dema demand nds s from from the the peti petiti tion oner er,, the the spouses refused to pay the remaining balance Thereafter, Thereafter, Nutrimix filed a complaint against Evan Evange geli list sta a for for coll collec ecti tion on of mone money y with with damages. The respon responden dents ts admitt admitted ed their their unpai unpaid d obli obliga gati tion on but but impu impugn gned ed thei theirr liab liabil ilit ity y conte contend nding ing that that the 9 check checks s issu issued ed were were made made to guar guaran ante tee e the the paym paymen entt of the the purchases, purchases, which was previously determined to be procured from the expected proceeds in the sale of their broilers and hogs. They contended that that inas inasmu much ch as the the sudd sudden en and and mass massiv ive e deat death h of thei theirr anim animal als s was was caus caused ed by the the contamin contaminated ated product products s of the petition petitioner, er, the nonpayment of their obligation was based on a just and legal legal ground. ground. The respondents also lodged a complaint for damages damages against against the petition petitioner, er, for the untimely and unforeseen death of their animals supposedly effected by the adulterated animal feeds the petitioner sold to them. Nutrim trimix ix alleg leged that that the the death eath of the the respondents’ animals was due to the wide widesp spre read ad pesti pestile lenc nce e in their their farm. farm. It, It, moreover, theorized that it was the respondents who mixed poison to its feeds to make it appear that the feeds were contaminated. ISSUE: ISSUE: WON Nutri Nutrimix mix is guilt guilty y of breac breach h of warranty due to hidden defects HELD: NO. The provisions 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 have been been known known to the vendee. vendee. Unde Underr the law, the requisit requisites es to recover recover on account 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 defect must ordinar ordinarily ily have been excluded from the contract; d) the defect, must be important (renders thin thing g UNFI UNFIT T or cons consid ider erab ably ly decr decrea ease ses s FITNESS); e) the action must be instituted within the statute of limitations limitations In alle allegi ging ng that that ther there e was was a viol violat atio ion n of warranty against hidden defects, the spouses assumed assumed the burden burden of proof. proof. However, However, this they they failed failed to overc overcome ome.. Under Under the the law, law, the defec defectt must must exist exist at the time the sale sale was made made and and at the the time time the the prod produc uctt left left the the hands of the seller, which the spouses failed to prove prove.. The The feeds feeds were were belat belatedl edly y tested tested—3 —3 months months after the death death of the broil broilers ers and and hogs. This means that at that time, they may have have already already been contamin contaminated ated.. They failed failed to prove that the feeds delivered to be tested were the same feeds that allegedly poisoned the animals. animals. It is also also commo common n pract practic ice e for them to mix different kinds of feeds. The mere death of the animals does not raise a prima facie case of breach of warranty. In this case, the eviden evidence ce presen presented ted by the spouse spouses s are only circumstantial. The remedies of breach of warran warranty ty again against st hidd hidden en defec defects ts are are eithe eitherr withdrawal from the contract or to demand a prop propor orti tion onat ate e redu reduct ctio ion n of the the pric price e plus plus damages damages in either either case. case. In this case, case, though though the spouses spouses failed failed to make make out their case, hence they should be liable for their debt.
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 parti parties es conte contemp mplat lated. ed. To be able able to prove prove liab liabil ilit ity y on the the basi basis s of brea breach ch of impl implie ied d things must be established warranty, three things by the respo responde ndents. nts. The first is that they sustained injury because of the product; the the seco second nd is that that the the inju injury ry occu occurr rred ed beca becaus use e the the prod product uct was was defe defect ctiv ive e or unre unreas ason onab ably ly unsa unsafe fe;; and and fina finall lly, y, the the
defect existed when the product left the hands of the petitioner. 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. A review of the facts of the case would reveal that the petitioner delivered the animal feeds, allegedly containing rat poison, on July 26, 1993; but it is astonishing that the respondents had the animal feeds examined only on October 20, 1993, or barely three months after their broilers and hogs had died. A difference of approximately three months enfeebles the respondents’ theory that the petitioner is guilty of breach of warranty by virtue of hidden defects. In a span of three months, the feeds could have already been contaminated by outside factors and subjected to many conditions unquestionably beyond the control of the petitioner.
