NUTRIMIX FEEDS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES EFREN AND MAURA EVANELISTA, respondents. !.R. No. "#$$"%. O&to'er $#, $(()* $(()*
FACTS+ Respondent spouses herein started to directly procure various kinds of animal feeds from from petitione petitionerr Nutrimix Nutrimix Feeds Corporati Corporation. on. Initiall Initially, y, the respond respondents ents were were good paying paying customers. In some instances, however, however, they failed to issue checks despite the deliveries deliveries of animal animal feeds which were appropri appropriatel ately y covered covered by sales invoices. invoices. Conseuent Conseuently, ly, the respond respondents ents incurred incurred an aggregate aggregate unsettle unsettled d account account with the petitioner petitioner.. !he petitioner petitioner made several demands for the respondents to settle their unpaid obligation, but the latter failed and refused to pay their remaining balance with the petitioner. "etitioner #led with R!C a complaint, against the respondents for sum of money and damages with a prayer for issuance issuance of writ of preliminary preliminary attachment. In their answer with counterclaim, the respondents admitted their unpaid obligation but impugned their liability to the petitioner. !hey contended that inasmuch as the sudden and massive death of their animals was caused by the contaminated products products of the petitioner, the nonpayment of their obligation was based on a $ust and legal ground. !he respondents respondents also lodged a complaint for damages against the petitioner for the untimely and unforeseen death of their animals supposedly e%ected by the adulterated animal animal feeds the petitioner petitioner sold to them. "etitio "etitioner ner moved to dismiss the responden respondents& ts& compla complaint int on the ground ground of litis litis pendent pendentia. ia. !he trial trial court court denied denied the same and the petitioner alleged that the death of the respondents& animals was due to the widespread pestilence in their their farm. !he petitioner, likewise, likewise, maintained maintained that it received received information information that the respondents were in an unstable #nancial condition and even sold their animals to settle their obligations obligations from other enraged enraged and insistent creditors. creditors. It, moreover, theori'ed theori'ed that it was the respondents who mixed poison to its feeds to make it appear that the feeds were contaminated. ISSUE+ Is the petiti petitione onerr corpor corporati ation on guilty guilty of breac breach h of warr warrant anty y due to hidden hidden defect defects s despite a #nding that there was a di%erence of approximately approximately three months from delivery of the animal feeds, to respondent spouses, to the time the animals died and the animal feeds were examined( )*+ di%erence of approximately three months enfeebles the respondents& theory that the petitioner is guilty of breach breach of warranty by virtue of hidden defects. defects. In a span of three months, the feeds could have already been contaminated by outside factors and sub$ected to many conditions unuestionably beyond the control of the petitioner. petitioner. !he provisions on warranty against hidden defects are found in rticles /01/ and /011 of the New Civil Code of the "hilippines. hidden defect is one which is unknown or could not have been known to the vendee. 2nder the law, the reuisites to recover on account of hidden defects are as follows3a4 the defect defect must be hidden5 hidden5 3b4 the defect must exist exist at the time the sale sale was made5 3c4 the defect must must ordinarily ordinarily have been been excluded excluded from the contract5
3d4 the defect, must be important 3renders thing 2NFI! or considerably decreases FI!N*6645 3e4 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 #t and suitable to be used for the purpose which both parties contemplated. !o be able to prove liability on the basis of breach of implied warranty, three things must be established by the respondents. !he #rst is that they sustained in$ury because of the product5 the second is that the in$ury occurred because the product was defective or unreasonably unsafe5 and #nally, the defect existed when the product left the hands of the petitioner. 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 uestion was defective. !he defect must be present upon the delivery or manufacture of the product5 or when the product left the seller&s or manufacturer&s control5 or when the product was sold to the purchaser5 or the product must have reached the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition it was sold. !racing the defect to the petitioner reuires some evidence that there was no tampering with, or changing of the animal feeds. !he nature of the animal feeds makes it necessarily di7cult for the respondents to prove that the defect was existing when the product left the premises of the petitioner. review of the facts of the case would reveal that the petitioner delivered the animal feeds, allegedly containing rat poison, on 8uly 91, /::;5 but it is astonishing that the respondents had the animal feeds examined only on ere sickness and death of the chickens is not satisfactory evidence in itself to establish a prima facie case of breach of warranty. +ikewise, there was evidence tending to show that the respondents combined di%erent kinds of animal feeds and that the mixture was given to the animals. In essence, we hold that the respondents failed to prove that the petitioner is guilty of breach of warranty due to hidden defects. It is, likewise, rudimentary that common law places upon the buyer of the product the burden of proving that the seller of the product breached its warranty. !he bevy of expert evidence adduced by the respondents is too shaky and utterly insu7cient to prove that the Nutrimix feeds caused the death of their animals. For these reasons, the expert testimonies lack probative weight. !he respondents& case of breach of implied warranty was fundamentally based upon the circumstantial evidence that the chickens and hogs sickened, stunted, and died after eating Nutrimix feeds5 but this was not enough to raise a reasonable supposition that the unwholesome feeds were the proximate cause of the death with that degree of certainty and probability reuired.
