Pascual v. Ford Motor Company Philippines, Inc.

   Pascual v. Ford Motor Company Philippines, Inc., 

G.R. No. 220667, 

January 27, 2016

DOCTRINE: Before a manufacturer or seller may be held liable for any damage caused

by their product, the following must be present: first, proof that the product in question

was defective; second, the defect must be present upon delivery or manufacture of the

product, or when the product was sold to the purchaser; and third, the product must have

reached the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

FACTS:

In November 2006, petitioner Olivia Pascual bought a second-hand Ford E-150.

Sometime in April 2008, Pascual’s driver was driving the vehicle at moderate speed along

the National Highway in Nueva Vizcaya when the right rear wheel suddenly detached,

causing Pascual and other passengers to suffer physical injuries and to be rushed to the

hospital.

Pascual filed complaint for damages based on quasi-delict against respondents

Ford Motor Company Philippines (FMCI), a Ford manufacturer and Ford Group

Philippines, Inc. (FGPI), a Ford distributor in the Philippines, claiming that both are liable

for the defective vehicle.

Respondents FMCI and FGPI denied their liability averring that Pascual cannot

claim the manufacturer’s warranty against hidden defects because the vehicle was

bought second hand and the warranty has already expired after two years from the day it

was bought from a Ford dealer on November 2000. They presented evidence that the

vehicle was repaired and altered by non-Ford authorized dealers to enable it to carry a

load beyond its capacity; and the heavy load stress caused the wheel to detach.

The RTC held respondents liable due to the factory defect of the vehicle; that the

vehicle was still purchased from them and that they failed to protect Pascual as the enduser

at the time of the incident.

The CA reversed the RTC ruling explaining that the vehicle had already undergone

unauthorized alterations at the time of the incident, and even if respondents were

negligent, the doctrine of proximate cause applies. The alteration is an efficient

intervening cause that would release respondents from liability. Pascual was negligent by

failing to check the vehicle before purchasing it; thus, it is her negligence that is the

proximate cause of the accident.

ISSUES:

Whether or not FMCI and FGPI are liable to Pascual for quasi-delict

HELD:

NO. Before a manufacturer or seller may be held liable for any damage caused by

their product, the following must be present:

First, proof that the product in question was defective;

Second, the defect must be present upon delivery or manufacture of the product,

or when the product left the seller’s or manufacturer’s control, or when the product

was sold to the purchaser; and

Third, the product must have reached the consumer without substantial change in

the condition in which it was sold.

Here, Pascual failed to present proof that the vehicle was defective upon its

manufacture; and the alteration in the vehicle after it was sold is considered a substantial

change in the vehicle’s condition. Thus, FMCI and FGPI cannot be held liable for any

damage caused by the vehicle’s defect.