JERRY T. MOLES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MARIANO M.

DIOLOSA G.R. No. 73913, January 31, 1989, REGALADO, J.

Where the buyer 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, there is an implied
warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.

Facts:

To purchase a linotype printing machine for his printing business, Jerry T. Moles obtained a loan
with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). As a condition sine qua non for the
issuance of the amount loaned, a certification that the printing machine when acquired is in good
working condition. Consequently, Mariano M. Diliosa sold his linotype printing machine to
Moles informing the latter that the same is secondhand but functional. Diliosa issued a
certification wherein he warranted that the machine sold was in A-1 condition.

Sometime after the machine was delivered and installed to Moles’s publishing house, Moles
wrote to Diliosa that the machine was not functioning properly as it needed a new distributor bar
but the latter made no reply. After several phone calls regarding the defects in the machine,
Diliosa sent two technicians to make the necessary repairs but they failed to put the machine in
running condition. Since then, Moles was never able to use the machine. Later, Diliosa decided
to purchase a new distributor bar and delivered it to Moles. The latter asked Diliosa to pay its
cost but the former offered to share its cost with Moles. Hence, Moles filed a complaint for
rescission of contract with damages.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Moles, however, its decision was reversed by
the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) on the ground that there is no implied warranty as to the
condition, adaptation, fitness, or suitability for a secondhand article. Hence, this petition was
filed.

Issue:

Whether or not there is an implied warranty as to the quality or fitness of secondhand articles
subject of sale.

Ruling:

YES. Article 1562 of our Civil Code, which was taken from the Uniform Sales Act, provides
that 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 such purpose; xxx

We disagree with respondent court that private respondent’s express warranty as to the A-1
condition of the machine was merely dealer's talk. Private respondent was not a dealer of
printing or linotype machines to whom could be ascribed the supposed resort to the usual
exaggerations of trade in said items. His certification as to the condition of the machine was not
made to induce petitioner to purchase it but to confirm in writing for purposes of the financing
aspect of the transaction his representations thereon. Ordinarily, what does not appear on the face
of the written instrument should be regarded as dealer's or trader's talk; conversely, what is
specifically represented as true in said document, as in the instant case, cannot be considered as
mere dealer's talk