General Considerations Prescription

Pablo R Antonio, Jr vs Engr Emilio M Morales

GR No 165552
23 January 2007
On 18 December 1995, Emilio filed with the
Makati RTC a complaint for sum of money based upon an
oral contract against Pablito. Pablito then filed motion to
dismiss on the grounds that there are defects in Emilios
complaint. Emilio amended his complaint. Subsequently,
the Makati RTC admitted the amended complaint and
denied the motion to dismiss. Pablito then filed a motion
for reconsideration (MR) which was also denied by the
Makati RTC. This prompted Pablito to file before the
Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, which remained
pending for six years.
Emilio then filed before the Makati RTC a motion
to dismiss his complaint because he felt that the petition
before the CA would be resolved indefinitely.
On 1 August 2001, the Makati RTC dismissed the
complaint without prejudice.
On 23 August 2001, Emilio filed before the CA a
manifestation that his complaint was dismissed without
prejudice before the Makati RTC. However, only after a
year did the CA directed Pablito to file a comment on
Emilios manifestation.
After which, the CA rendered a decision
dismissing Pablitos petition.
On 23 September 2002, Emilio filed anew before
the Quezon City RTC a complaint for sum of money
against Pablito.
Pablito then filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of prescription considering that
under Article 1145 of the Civil Code, actions based on
oral contracts prescribe in six years. He maintains that
from August 14, 1995, when he received respondents
last letter of demand, to September 23, 2002, when
respondent filed before the QC RTC, more than seven
years had elapsed; and that the first case before the
Makati RTC, did not interrupt the running of the period.
The RTC denied his motion to dismiss as well as
his MR. The same happened before the CA, his petition
was dismissed and his MR was denied
ruling.
merit.

Hence, Pablito now raises that the CA erred in its

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacks
The Civil Code provides:

ART. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse

of time fixed by law.
xxx
ART. 1145. The following actions must be
commenced within six years:

(1) Upon an oral-contract

(2) Upon a quasi-contract.
xxx
ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is
interrupted when they are filed before the court, when
there is written extra-judicial demand by the creditors, and
when there is any written acknowledgement of the debt
by the debtor.
The prescription of an action refers to the time
within which an action must be brought after the right of
action has accrued. The prescriptive statutes serve to
protect those who are diligent and vigilant, not those who
sleep on their rights. The rationale behind the prescription
of actions is to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from
springing up at great distances of time, thus surprising the
parties or their representatives when the facts have
become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective
memory or death or removal of the witnesses.

Prescription as understood and used

in this jurisdiction does not simply mean a
mere lapse of time. Rather, there must be a
categorical showing that due to plaintiffs
negligence, inaction, lack of interest, or
intent to abandon a lawful claim or cause of
action, no action whatsoever was taken, thus
allowing the statute of limitations to bar any
subsequent suit.
Pabitos invocation of prescription is misplaced.
On 18 December 1995, Emilio initially filed with Makati
RTC the complaint. While it was later dismissed without
prejudice to his own motion, the dismissal sought was not
for the purpose of voluntarily abandoning his claim.
Emilios intention was to expedite the enforcement of his
rights. Understandably, he felt frustrated at the snails
pace at which his case was moving. The petition filed by
Pablito before the CA remained pending for six years.
Further, Emilio acted swiftly after the dismissal of
his case without prejudice by the Makati RTC. He
immediately filed with the CA a manifestation that the
Makati RTC case was dismissed. But the CA acted on
his manifestation only after one year. This delay, beyond
Emilios control, in turn further caused delay in the filing of
his new complaint with the Quezon City RTC. Clearly,
there was no inaction or lack of interest on his part.
The statute of limitations was devised to operate
primarily against those who slept on their rights and not
against those desirous to act but could not do so for
causes beyond their control.