REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 53, CALOOCAN CITY
MERLE AZAJAR, doing business
under the name and style of
PRECISE MOTOR REWINDING SHOP
represented by FRANCISCO LEE AZAJAR,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Civil Case No. 13-30309

For: Sum of Money with Damages

SOLID ONE MILLS, PHILS., INC.,

Defendant.
x----------------------------------x

ORDER
This is an action for Sum of Money with Damages.
Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Block 24, Lot 12,
Phase 3-D Dagat-Dagatan, Kaunlaran Village, Caloocan City. She is
represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Francisco Lee Azajar.
Defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine
laws with principal office at No. 55 Aragon St., San Francisco Del Monte,
Quezon City.
On 15 December 2011, plaintiff instituted the present case against the
defendant. Summons together with the copy of the complaint and its annexes
were served upon the defendant at its given address. Thereafter, defendant
filed its Answer with Counterclaim on 24 January 2012.
The case was initially set for preliminary conference, thereafter, it was
referred to the Philippine Mediation Center but parties failed to arrive into
settlement, hence, the preliminary conference was terminated with the
following issues submitted for resolution of this Court:
1. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant;
2. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the
complaint;
3. Whether or not the plaintiff failed to deliver the motors fit to defendant's
business knowing fully well that it is to be used/utilized in a high-dust
environment;
4. Whether or not the defendant is entitled to its counter-claims, damages
and attorney's fees.
Trial ensued. Plaintiff presented her lone witness in the person of
Francisco Lee Azajar. He testified that defendant requested for two (2) units of
Lincoln Induction Motor, 150HP, 440v converted from 1800 rpm, a surplus
reconditioned motor. A quotation1 was prepared and faxed to the defendant
who sent it back to them with notation APPROVED. A purchase order 2 was
1 Common Exhibit: Plaintiff's Exhibit D; Defendant's Exhibit 13
2 Common Exhibit: Plaintiff's Exhibit A; Defendant's Exhibit 1

subsequently issued in their favor, thereafter, delivery of the motors followed

evidenced by the service invoice3 received and signed by defendant's
representative. Defendant despite repeated demands 4 failed to pay the said
motors.
Plaintiff rested her case with formal offer of documentary exhibits which
were admitted by the Court in the Order dated 27 July 2012. Thereafter,
presentation of defendant's evidence proceeded.
Defendant initially offered the testimony of Jaime V. Santiago,
defendant corporation's president who testified that Precise Rewinding Motor
(Precise for brevity) is their company's regular supplier. Precise through Mr.
Azajar, offered him the Lincoln induction motors (subject of this collection
case). He informed Mr. Azajar to submit the quotation 5 to their purchasing
department, which Mr. Azajar timely did. Subsequently, purchase order for
said induction motors were prepared and delivery was made thereafter.
After receipt of the motors, he received a call from their plant engineer
informing him that said induction motors were not fit for their plant operation
use because the motors were open-type and they are operating a (the) feed
mill, which by its nature is (in) a very dusty environment. He tried to call Mr.
Azajar to inform him of their predicament but his call was never returned. (he
never received a return call.)
After a month, metal boxes were voluntarily provided by the plaintiff to
cover and prevent the dust from entering the induction motors. However, after
discussing (a discussion) the problem with the plant engineer regarding the
open-type motors and the metal covers, it was agreed that (was held, they
arrived into agreement that) it is not advisable (fit) to cover the induction
motors because there will be no ventilation, the heat from the induction motors
will accumulate inside the metal housing/encasement and the motors might
eventually explode which will put their business and personnel at risk.
He thereafter instructed the purchasing department to return the motors
and its covers but Precise did not let their personnel unload the items.
Presented next on the witness stand for the defendant was Bonifacio
Lopez, defendant corporation's Plant Engineer. He testified that he rejected
the open-type motors the moment he saw them because the motors were not
fit to the kind of environment they have. Such fact was communicated to Mr.
Santiago, the president of Solid One and to Mr. Azajar, of Precise, who instead
of replacing the motors sent metal boxes. He also rejected the metal boxes
sent by Mr. Azajar because it was not precision-designed to fit the motors, and
will be very prone to overheating and which will eventually produce the same
disastrous results.
An expert witness in the person of Daniel L.K. Ching was also
presented by the defendant who testified that an open-type motor is primarily
used in dust free environments and not suitable for feed mills. He also testified
on the distinction between an open-type and a totally enclosed fan type motor.
Thereafter, defendant formally offered its documentary exhibits which
drew comment/opposition from the plaintiff. Thereafter, Exhibits 1, 2, 5,
11, 12, 13 inclusive of its sub-markings and 15 together with the Judicial
3 Common Exhibit: Plaintiff's Exhibit B; Defendant's Exhibit 2
4 Exhibit C
5 Common Exhibits: Plaintiff's Exhibits D, D-2; Defendant's Exhibits 13, 14

Affidavit of Mr. Bonifacio Lopez were admitted by the Court in the Order dated
27 September 2013.
Prefatorily, a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another 6. During the preliminary conference, parties
stipulated on the existence of the Purchase Order No. 19852 7 which prompted
the delivery of the two (2) units of Lincoln induction motors (surplus) 150HP,
440v, 1150 converted from 1800 rpm to 1150 rpm 3-phase. Its non-payment
despite repeated demands gave rise to the existence of a cause of action.
All other issues raised in this action can be reduced to (the) a simple
question: whether or not the quality of the motors delivered fit for its intended
purpose?
Parties stipulated and admitted on the existence of the purchase order
including the amount8 and the terms9 indicated therein. Defendant also
admitted that subject motors were delivered and received by its representative
evidenced by the service invoice. Since the issues raised during the
preliminary conference can be reduced to the quality or fitness of the motors
for defendant's business, Article 1562 in relation to Article 1564 of the New
Civil Code finds application. The provisions read as follows:
Article 1562. In a sale of goods, there is
an implied warranty or condition as to the
quality or fitness of the goods, as follows:
(1) Where
the
buyer,
expressly
or
by
implication, makes known to the seller the
particular purpose for which the goods are
acquired, and it appears that the buyer relies
on the seller's skill or judgment (whether he
be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is
an implied warranty that the goods shall be
reasonably fit for the purpose;
(2) xxx xxx xxx
Article 1564. An implied warranty or
condition as to the quality or fitness for a
particular purpose may be annexed by the usage
of trade.
The quotation10 as well as the purchase order presented by the plaintiff,
as evidence, stated that the motors are intended for defendant's pellet-mill
(spare and local). The inclusion of the intended use is a notice to the seller of
the purpose why defendant was purchasing said items.
Plaintiff's representative testified that Precise was serving the
defendant corporation for three (3) to four (4) years for their motor rewinding
requirements. Hence, plaintiff is more or less familiar with the kind of operation
defendant corporation has. Defendant on the other hand claimed that the
motors were open-type and not fit to the kind of environment their business
has, the very reason why they were trying to return the motors but plaintiff
provided metal boxes instead.
6
7
8
9
10

Section 2, Rule 2, Revised Rules of Court

Ibid
TSN dated 25 May 2012, page 15
TSN dated 25 May 2012, page 18
Common Exhibit: Plaintiff's Exhibit D-1 and Defendant's Exhibit 14

Mr. Azajar during his testimony admitted that Precise indeed provided
said metal boxes but he does not know why the defendant requested for that.
He testified that plaintiff provide such metal boxes for free because defendant
is a customer.
The foregoing create impression to the mind of this Court that indeed
the motors were not fit to the kind of environment defendant corporation has
because this posited the business and their personnel at risk.
The Court is inclined to believe that the metal boxes were provided to
cure the defect of the open-type motors. It is very unlikely that plaintiff gave
such metal boxes without asking the defendant of the purpose and reason
why they were requesting for it and surprisingly, the metal covers were given
for free. Ordinary human experience dictates that one will inquire on the
reason behind each request before heeding to it. Moreso, in case of the
plaintiff who is (in the) a businessman and the production or fabrication of said
metal boxes would necessarily entail cost on her part.
The Court notes the testimony of Mr. Azajar that Precise delivered the
open-type motors based on the purchased order issued by the defendant 11.
He reasoned that the purchase order indicates Lincoln type motor and it is
understood that if it is Lincoln type, it is an open-type motor. This was negated
by the testimony of Daniel Ching (expert witness) who testified that he does
not agree with Atty. Garcia when he said that Lincoln motors produces only
open-type motors12.
Anent the modification of the motor speed, Mr. Azajar (plaintiff's
representative) claimed that the request for conversion was made before the
delivery of the subject motors. Such request was not indicated in the purchase
order, service invoice and in the quotation because it is already understood 13.
As admitted by Mr. Azajar, the modification of the speed from 1800 rpm
to 1150 rpm 3-phase was not written on any of the foregoing documents 14.
Plaintiff founded her claim in the purchase order issued by the defendant. Mr.
Azajar testified that the defendant requested for two units of Lincoln Induction
Motor, 150 HP, 440v, converted from 1800 rpm, surplus reconditioned motor.
After such request, quotation was sent to the defendant who approved for two
(2) units of motor. Delivery followed thereafter.
Since the agreement before purchase order and the service invoice
were issued, it is but safe to say that their agreement were all reflected in the
documents. As such, the seller failed to comply with the requirements of the
defendant, thus, justifying its act of rejecting the delivered motors for its failure
to comply with the specification.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the case against Solid One Mills,
Phils., Inc. is hereby DISMISSED. Defendant is ordered to return the two (2)
units of Lincoln induction motors (surplus) 150HP, 440v, 1150 converted from
1800 rpm to 1150 rpm 3-phase to the plaintiff.
The counterclaim filed by against the plaintiff is also DISMISSED.
11
12
13
14

TSN dated June 15, 2012, page 20

TSN dated July 29, 2013, page 21
TSN dated June 15, 2012, Page 11
TSN dated June 15, 2012, page 9

SO ORDERED.
03 January 2014, Caloocan City.

DENNIS J. RAFA
Acting Presiding Judge
Section 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court:
Section 1: Burden of Proof. - Burden of proof
is the duty of the party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.
Article 1563. In the case of contract of
sale of a specified article under its patent or
other trade name, there is no warranty as to
its fitness for any particular purpose, unless
there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Webster Dictionary defines warranty as a written agreement of the integrity of
a product and of the maker's responsibility for the repair or replacement of
defective parts.
Plaintiff alleged that she delivered two (2) units of Lincoln Induction
Motor (surplus) 150 HP, 440v, converted from 1800 rpm to 1150 rpm 3-phase
to the defendant in the amount of Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos
(Php280,000.00). They agreed that the same will be payable in post dated
check, thirty (30) days after its delivery.
The items were delivered and received by the defendant's employee in
good order and condition without any protest, reservation or complaint but
defendant failed to issue the post dated check, as agreed mode of payment,
upon the induction motors' delivery. Despite repeated demands 15, defendant
still failed and refused to pay the Lincoln induction motors.
Defendant, on the other hand claimed that plaintiff offered spare motors
for the latter's pellet mills. Jaime Santiago (defendant corporation's president)
informed the plaintiff that the motor should be originally low speed. Francisco
Lee Azajar (plaintiff's representative) assured him that it is a low speed
surplus. Purchase order16 was subsequently issued in favor of the plaintiff to
reflect the agreement, thereafter, delivery of the motors followed.
When the supervisors and technical people saw that the motors were
open type and unfit for the kind of environment they have, they attempted to
return the items but plaintiff refused to accept the same. Instead, she (plaintiff)
sent a metal cover for the motors. Again, attempt to return the items were
made because the metal covers can still put its business and employees in
danger but unavailing.
The agreement to buy
15 Exhibit C
16 Common Exhibit: Plaintiff's Exhibit A; Defendant's Exhibit 1

Defendant on the other hand claimed that it was the plaintiff who
offered them the induction motors
The testimony of Mr. Azajar enumerates the turn of events which give
rise to the delivery of the induction motors and subsequently, the defendant's
failure to pay the same.
Furthermore, Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states
that:
Sec. 9: Evidence of written agreements.
- When the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can
be,
between
the
parties
and
their
successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement if puts in issue in his
pleading:
a.
An
intrinsic
ambiguity,
mistake
or
imperfection in the written agreement;
b.
The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto;
c.
The validity of the written agreement; or
d.
The existence of other terms agreed to by
the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written agreement.
The term agreement includes wills.

Paragraph 4 of the complaint in part states that xxx xxx xxx; on

April 8, 2011, plaintiff rendered service and delivered
in favor of the defendant for the agreed fee in the
amount of Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P280,000.00)
payable within thirty (30) days from date of such
delivery the supply of Two (2) units of Lincoln Induction
Motor (surplus) 150 HP, 440v, converted from 1800 rpm to
1150 rpm 3-phase. Xxx xxx xxx (underscoring supplied).
Other than said allegation, the conversion was never put as an issue in the
complaint for the Court to admit parol evidence as to the existence of the
alleged request for modification. Since the plaintiff was claiming that such
request for modification exist, he has the burden of proving the same by the
amount of evidence required by law 17. No evidence was presented by the
plaintiff to prove such allegation other that his testimony given in open court
that the conversion is understood18.
17 Section 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court
18 TSN dated June 15, 2012, page 11

Section 1, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined. - In civil cases, the party having
the burden of proof must establish his case by
a preponderance of evidence. In determining
where the preponderance or superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court
may
consider
all
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses'
manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying, the nature
of the facts to which they testify, the
probability
or
improbability
of
their
testimony, their interest or want of interest,
and also their personal credibility so far as
the same may legitimately appear upon the
trial. The court may also consider the number
of witnesses, though the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number.
R.A. 7394 The Consumer Act of the Philippines
Article 100. Liability for Product and Service Imperfection. The suppliers of durable or
nondurable consumer products are jointly liable for imperfections in quality that render the
products unfit or inadequate for consumption for which they are designed or decrease their value,
and for those resulting from inconsistency with the information provided on the container,
packaging, labels or publicity messages/advertisement, with due regard to the variations resulting
from their nature, the consumer being able to demand replacement to the imperfect parts.
If the imperfection is not corrected within thirty (30) days, the consumer may alternatively demand
at his option:
a) the replacement of the product by another of the same kind, in a perfect state of use;
b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with monetary updating, without
prejudice to any losses and damages;
c) a proportionate price reduction.
The parties may agree to reduce or increase the term specified in the immediately preceding
paragraph; but such shall not be less than seven (7) nor more than one hundred and eighty (180)
days.
The consumer may make immediate use of the alternatives under the second paragraph of this
Article when by virtue of the extent of the imperfection, the replacement of the imperfect parts
may jeopardize the product quality or characteristics, thus decreasing its value.
If the consumer opts for the alternative under sub-paragraph (a) of the second paragraph of this
Article, and replacement of the product is not possible, it may be replaced by another of a different
kind, mark or model: Provided, That any difference in price may result thereof shall be
supplemented or reimbursed by the party which caused the damage, without prejudice to the
provisions of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of this Article.

Read in relation to 1567 NCC, 1571

Plaintiff delivered an open type motor, knowing fully well that defendant is
engaged in a feed mill business. She also delivered metal boxes for free
without asking for its purpose. In the ordinary course of human experience,
one will not give something without asking why that thing should be given

especially so if that thing will entail cost. TSN dated 15 June 2012 pages 17 20

WHEN DOES THE AGREEMENT CONCLUDE? WAS IT WITHIN THE

AMBIT OF RULE ON PAROL EVIDENCE... COPY RULE ON PAROL
EVIDENCE

- SEC 9 RULE 130 RULE ON PAROL EVIDENCE

- purpose of warranty
TSN june 15, 2012 page 20, it is understood that if it is Lincoln type motor, it
is an open type motor
-REGARDING DELIVERY OF METAL BOXES PAGE 8-11, 14-17
did not ask for the reason why defendant asked for metal boxes