Jaime Ledesma v. Court of Appeals

Summary

This case resolved the interpretation of Article 1155 of the Civil Code regarding interruption of prescriptive periods. RCBC sued Ledesma twice for the same trust receipt agreement - first case was dismissed for lack of service, second case was filed years later. Petitioner claimed prescription, but the Supreme Court held that filing the first action interrupted the 10-year prescriptive period under Article 1144(1). Upon dismissal, the full prescriptive period began anew, making the second action timely. The Court clarified that interruption under Article 1155 means the prescriptive period commences anew upon cessation, not merely tolled, ensuring consistent interpretation across all three interruption methods: filing of action, written extrajudicial demand, and written acknowledgment of debt.