ANALYSIS OF 10/25/2016 SUPREME COURT PETITION

Desperate to delay pre-trial but Just about out of options, Subaru petitions the Supreme Court. Unlike the lower courts, continuously petitioning the Supreme court to delay things is not something you do (assuming the attorney wants to stay an attorney). Also, making every argument you can think of and hoping that something will stick is also not advisable when petitioning this court. You petition once during pre-trial, pick the one or two best arguments you have, and go into great detail. Hence, the seventeen page pleading we have here.

I could simply state that there is nothing new here (there isn't) and leave it at that, but since this is a petition to the Supreme court, I will analyze the two arguments that Subaru puts forth. Keep in mind that these two arguments, taken from many arguments made up until this point, are what Subaru considers to be their best. When you consider how weak they really are, it puts into perspective how bad the other arguments must have been.

1) Here is where they think that they can get this case dismissed on a technicality. In any lawsuit thereare always technicalities in play. The smallest irregularity has the potential to get a lawsuitdismissed. However, courts always look at the circumstances of the technicality otherwise no lawsuitever filed would make it to trial. In this case, they are saying that we failed to state a cause of actionagainst Subaru. In other words, we never told Subaru what they did wrong or what we wanted. Atfirst glance, this would seem ridiculous. Obviously we told them that they did not honour theirwarranty and we wanted to be compensated for the cost of replacing the turbo charger. But the keypoint here is the identity of "them". It had always been difficult to determine responsibility for thewarranty, as I have mentioned several times before. I ask for my warranty to be honored by thelocal authorized dealer but am denied. I complain to the manager of the dealership, but I'm justignored. I request assistance from the head of Subaru for all of South East Asia, and get a nastyletter in response. I even write letters to multiple individuals at Subaru inJapan, and receive a response to the effect of "don't waste our time".

Their point is that I never asked Motor Image Pilipinas or Benedicto Arcinas, two of therespondents to this lawsuit, what I wanted. Keep in mind that according to Subaru neither of thosetwo entities are responsible for the warranty anyway (it appears to be Autosales and Aftersales).Subaru also goes on and on regarding a lot of their silly claims that have nothing to with this keyargument, hoping to sway the Supreme Court. For example, they mention how the car was notproperly maintained. This is not only irrelevant to their argument, but is something that should beresolved in a trial anyway.

In summation, they are hoping that their carefully crafted use of proxies, specifically designed toresult in this type of technicality, will work.

2) With their first argument, at least I can agree that maybe they got us on a technicality, even thoughit is clearly a long shot that a case would be dismissed based on such a minor issue. But this secondargument is just pathetic, pure and simple. They claim that my turbocharger failed two days beforethe warranty expired, and because this lawsuit was filed more than two days after that fact, the caseshould be dismissed. You don't need to be lawyer to know that it is not possible to prepare and filea lawsuit in two days. And even if it was, it took more than two days for Subaru to deny mywarranty claim anyway. And this is the second best argument they can make to the Supreme Court?To make this argument they reference established case law, specifically:

3)

352

Isidro vs. Nissan Motors Philippines

Engineering & Machinery Cortp. vs. Court of Appeals

Jaime D. Ang vs. Court of Appeals

Carlos B. De Guzman vs. Toyota Cubao

Natividad Villostas vs. Court of Appeals

Moles v: IAC

Republic vs. Marsman

Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., vs. S.R. Farms, Inc.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Feliciano vs. Canoza

With such a long list of established case law, you may be forgiven for thinking they have something here. Well they don't. I researched all of the 10 cases referenced above, but I will focus here on just the two cases that relate to car companies. Since Nissan and Toyota well known reputable companies (as opposed to Subaru), I think you may find it interesting what they are all about.

With the Nissan case, the plaintiff had a car that developed a problem long after the warranty expired. This has nothing to do with having to file a case before a warranty expires, but everything to do with having a problem that occurred well after the warranty ended. Basically, Nissan was saying that the warranty expired so why should they fix the car for free, while the plaintiff was saying they should. Nissan was correct on this one.

The Toyota case is even more irrelevant. Did Toyota really deny a warranty claim here? Hardly. In fact, this is a case that has to do with an implied warranty, not an express warranty that my Subaru had. In case you do not know the difference between an implied and an express warranty, let me explain. If you buy something and the seller gives you a warranty, that is an express warranty. If you buy something and do not receive a warranty, then you still receive an implied warranty. For example, if you buy a car that has the wrong torque converter installed, then you may have an implied warranty. The implied warranty being that the car has a problem that the seller knew about, or should have known about, and the seller is therefore responsible for any damages that arise from this problem. In the Toyota case, Toyota sold a one year old (but new) car that did not have a warranty. Two years later, the engine failed. The courts held that there was an implied warranty, but that implied warranty was only for one year. Clearly, Toyota did not have any responsibility here. But more importantly, this case has nothing to do with filing a lawsuit before a warranty expired, and everything to do with a problem arising after an implied warranty expires.

As for the other 8 cases, not only do they not involve the issue at hand, but since they do not involve car companies, I think they will just bore the reader (assuming you are not bored already). But if you are interested, most of them are available for review online.

So why would Subaru make such weak arguments to the Supreme Court? It is clear. They may be weak, but it is all they have. Not only do they not have a winning argument, but they don't have any strong arguments either.

353

i; '

� · .r,

•

0.

"To qualify for any warranty claims; you must send your

Subaru in £qr regular services as recpmmended in the vehicle maintenance!Schedule at the back of ·this Warranty and Service

Booklet."

XX X

"Subject to the terms of warranty contained in this booklet during the warranty period, if any defect in material or workmanship is found or any component part of the new vehicle, Motor Im.age or its authorized Service Center shall repair or replace such defective parts free of charge."

Likewise, page 10 of the Warranty Booklet on the subject vehicle (Annex "6" of the Amended and Second Amended Complaint), provided "what is not covered" by the warranty as:

�.,,i

"This warranty does not cover xxx mishandling of the vehicle, or unauthorized repairs and services. These include:

XXX

The lack of proper maintenance or the use of wrong fuel, oil lubricants

XXX

In violation of the foregoing, Respondent admittedly failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the warranty as shown by the following allegations in the Amended and Second Amended Complaint:

"9. Because plaintiff resides in Subic, Olongapo City, service of his car was made with the nearest authorized dealer in Pampanga or Subaru Pampanga. However, defendants do not sell the required oil weight of SW-30 or ilie comparable oil weight of the l0W-30 as required and recommended by page 11-19 of the Service and Warranty Booklet (i.e. Annex 7, Owner's ·Manual page 11-19). Hence, plaintiff was forced to buy the recommended oil weight of SW-30 from a mall just to have his oil correctly changed. A copy of defendants' service invoice dated 15 August 2011 is hereafter attached to show that plaintiff purchased an oil filter at Subaru Pampanga." (underscoring ours)

XXX

"11. Even before the service personnel of Subaru Pampanga could look at the car or check their records the Service

. I

Manager made it a point to immediately tell plaintiff that the said vehicle is no longer covered by warranty because the Motor Image

8

10

j

-'?-'\ ( I -·

In the Nissan Case, which facts are very similar to the case at bar, the therein Respondent purchased a brand-new Nissan Sentra with an express:manufacturer's warranty against hidden defects for a period of twent7-four (24) months or 50,000 kilometers, whichever came first. Two· (2) years and nine months after delivery of the car, therein Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint against . Respondent for breach of warranty. In so ruling that Petitioner's actipn had prescribed, the Supreme Court ruled that the action to enforce the ,warranty was filed two and half (2 ½) years from the date of the purchase or delivery of the vehicle subject of the warranty. The Court went on to rule, applying the Engineering Case, that where there was an express warranty in the contract, as·in the case at bar, the prescriptive period was the one specified in the express warranty, if any.

Conspicuously, the same ruling was again reiterated by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Jaime D. Ang vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 177874, 567 SCRA 53[September 29, 20081), wherein it held that:

,.�;,-"·

The earlier cited ruling in Engineering & Machinery Corp. states that "the prescriptive period for instituting actions based on a breach of express warranty is that specified in the contract, and in

·the absence of such period, the general rule on rescission of.,u. contract, which is four years (Article 1389, Civil Code)." (p. 58)

(emphasis ours)

In fact, .even statutes, particularly the Consumer Act of the Philippines, provide that the seller and the consumer may stipulate the period within which the express warranty shall be enforceable (Article 68 (e) of R.A. 7394 [Consumer Act of the Philippines]).

Based, therefore, on the above pronouncements of the Honorable Supreme Court together with the Consumer Act of the Philippines (Article 68 (e) of R.A. 7394), clearly, Respondent's cause of action for breach of express warranty was barred by the statutes of limitations when the Complaint, Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint were filed beyond the three-year warranty:

· period.

Consequently, the RTC in its Order dated August 29, 2014, cited and applied the case of Carlos B. De Guzman vs. Toyota Cubao, Inc.10, stating that:

10 G.R. No. 141480, 29 November2006 (508 SCRA 408]

12

14

-----------------�-- , -�.::a.�:.�-;:.··=:-2 ...... ··--··-.1-.. ---�-----,----:::,,.,,·

J

"The settled rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original; hence, the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the amendment." (p. 338) (emphasis ours)

Therefore, considering that the Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint were filed on April 24, 2013 and November 11, 2014, respectively, both dates being more than four (4) years after the date of purchase of the subject vehicle (on March 28, 2009), the same should be considered barred by the statute of limitations.

For that matter, contrary to the findings of the CA, it could not be denied that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it did not apply the case of Feliciano vs. Canoza (629 SCRA 550, September 1, 2010), which mandated the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it appeared from the same or from the evidence on record that the action was [already] barred by the statute of limitations, to wit:

"Rule 9, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the action is already barred by the statute of)imitations, the court shall dismiss the claim." (p.558)

,;-/"7HEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the RTC be directed totlesist from further proceedings in Civil Case No. 73836 and that judgment be rendered dismissing all the Complaints of herein Respondent in Civil Case No 73836, for failure to state a cause of action against herein Petitioners and prescription.

Petitioner prays for such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.

Quezon City for City of Manila,·October 25, 2016.

ARCINAS & ARCINAS Counsel for Respondent

Rm. 2K EdificioEnriqueta 422 N.S. Amoranto Street, cor.

D. Tuason Avenue, Quezon City1114, Philippines·

16

18

-�

By:

,,. EN TH A. B ENAVENTU

IBP . o. 1017870, 01.05.16, BULACAN

PTR No. 2147933, 01.04.16, Qu�zon City Roll No. 63516, Of" "0

,. ..

MCLE Cert. of Complianc, � 1-?:.�? 8'��

COPY FURNISHED: .

PARAS AND MANLAP AZ LAWYER� Counsel for Respondent 1402 Equitable Bank Tower 8751 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH (12' Ermita, City of Manila

Prese

EXPLANATION

Jhe foregoing Petition was served on the above addressee byregi,stered mail due to lack of personnel to effect personal service.

17

.:... ··----

19