1970 – Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair, Nonperformance, Fixing the period)

• GR No. L-27454

• Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454, 32 SCRA 547 (April 30, 1970)

• ChanRobles
• Lawyerly

• OBLICON

• Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair, Nonperformance, Fixing the period not applicable

• Typewriter repair case

• Period cannot be fixed by court if facts show that contract was breached by nonperformance and time for compliance has expired.
• Claims for damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved.

• Period cannot be fixed by court if facts show that contract was breached by nonperformance and time for compliance has expired.
  • The time for compliance having evidently expired, and there being a breach of contract by nonperformance, it was academic for the plaintiff to have first petitioned the court to fix a period for the performance of the contract before filing his complaint in this case.
• Claims for damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved.
  • As-is

• In a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision rendered by CFI Manila, which involved the defendant-appellee’s nonperformance of his obligation to repair a portable typewriter, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant must compensate the plaintiff the costs incurred as a result of fixing defendant’s damage to the typewriter. Defendant cannot invoke the absence of a period as a defense under Article 1197 as facts revealed his nonperformance, resulting in the expiration of the time of compliance and breach of contract. Hence, the Court ruled the defendant liable for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner as well as the cost for the missing parts.

• April 30, 1970

• Supreme Court of the Philippines

• En Banc

• Reyes, JBL

• Concepcion, C.J.
• Dizon
• Makalintal
• Zaldivar
• Castro
• Fernando
• Teehankee
• Villamor

3.5.2. Dissenting

• None

3.5.3. Absent/Others

• Barredo, J (did not take part)

• N/A

• Rosendo Chaves

3.7.2. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

• Fructuoso Gonzales

• Chaves, Elio, Chaves, & Associates

3.7.2. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

• Sulpicio E. Platon

• Direct appeal from a decision rendered by CFI Manila

• New Civil Code
  • Article 1167
  • Article 1170
  • Article 1197

• Perez v. Araneta, GR L-18414, 24 SCRA 43 (July 15 1968)
• Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga, GR L-24116-17, 24 SCRA 708 (August 22, 1968)
• Malonzo v. Galang, GR L-13851, July 27, 1960
• Daraga v. Belizear, GR L-22399, 19 SCRA 214 (March 31, 1967)
• Tiglao et al. V. Manila Railroad Co., 98 Phil. 181

• On early July 1963, plaintiff asked defendant, a typewriter repairer, a portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing.
• Defendant was not able to finish the job despite repeated reminders by the plaintiff.
• On October 1963, defendant asked plaintiff for P6.00 for purchasing spare parts. Defendant complied.
• On October 26, 1963, plaintiff demanded the return of the typewriter. Defendant returned it wrapped. On returning home, plaintiff discovered the typewriter to be in disarray with missing parts.
• On October 29, 1963, plaintiff sent a demand letter to defendant for the return of the missing parts, the interior cover, and the sum of P 6.00. The defendant only returned some of the missing parts, the interior cover, and the P 6.00.
• On August 29, 1964, plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business machines. It cost him a total of P89.85.

• CFI Manila
  • Plaintiff commenced his action to demand the following from defendant:
    • P 90.00 as actual and compensatory damages
    • P 100.0 for temperate damages
    • P 500.00 for moral damages
    • P 500.00 as attorney’s fees
  • The court ruled that only the missing parts should be chargeable to the defendant, at a total value of P 31.10.
• Supreme Court
  • Plaintiff-appellant alleged that he should be awarded the whole cost of labor and materials that went into the repair of the machine, as provided for in Article 1167 of the Civil Code.
  • Defendant-appellee alleged that he is liable for nothing because his contract with plaintiff-appellant did not contain a period. Plaintiff-appellant should have filed a petition for the court to fix the period under Article 1197 of the Civil Code.
  • Because of plaintiff’s direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the facts, as found by the trial court, are deemed conclusive and non-reviewable.

• Whether defendant-appellee can petition the court to fix the period under Article 1197 of the Civil Code.
• Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner under Article 1167 of the Civil Code?
• Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of the missing parts under Article 1170 of the Civil Code?
• Whether the court was correct in rejecting appellant’s claims for moral and temperate damages and attorney’s fees?

• Whether defendant-appellee can petition the court to fix the period under Article 1197 of the Civil Code.
  • No.
    • Defendant cannot invoke Article 1197 of the Civil Code for he virtually admitted nonperformance by returning the typewriter that he was obliged to repair in a non-working condition, with essential parts missing. The fixing of a period would thus be a mere formality and would serve no purpose than to delay (cf. Tiglao. et al. V. Manila Railroad Co. 98 Phil. 181).
    • The inferences derivable from these findings of fact are that the appellant and the appellee had a perfected contract for cleaning and servicing a typewriter; that they intended that the defendant was to finish it at some future time although such time was not specified; and that such time had passed without the work having been accomplished, far the defendant returned the typewriter cannibalized and unrepaired, which in itself is a breach of his obligation, without demanding that he should be given more time to finish the job, or compensation for the work he had already done.
    • The time for compliance having evidently expired, and there being a breach of contract by nonperformance, it was academic for the plaintiff to have first petitioned the court to fix a period for the performance of the contract before filing his complaint in this case.
• Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner under Article 1167 of the Civil Code?
  • Yes.
    • It is clear that the defendant-appellee contravened the tenor of his obligation because he not only did not repair the typewriter but returned it "in shambles", according to the appealed decision. For such contravention, as appellant contends, he is liable under Article 1167 of the Civil Code. jam quot, for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner. The cost of the execution of the obligation in this case should be the cost of the labor or service expended in the repair of the typewriter, which is in the amount of P58.75, because the obligation or contract was to repair it.
• Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of the missing parts under Article 1170 of the Civil Code?
  • Yes.
    • In addition, the defendant-appellee is likewise liable, under Article 1170 of the Code, for the cost of the missing parts, in the amount of P31.10, for in his obligation to repair the typewriter he was bound, but failed or neglected, to return it in the same condition it was when he received it.
• Whether the court was correct in rejecting appellant’s claims for moral and temperate damages and attorney’s fees?
  • Yes.
    • Appellant’s claims for moral and temperate damages and attorney’s fees were, however, correctly rejected by the trial court, for these were not alleged in his complaint. Claims for damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved. The appealed judgment thus made no findings on these claims, nor on the fraud or malice charged to the appellee. As no findings of fact were made on the claims for damages and attorney’s fees, there is no factual basis upon which to make an award therefor. Appellant is bound by such judgment of the court, a quo, by reason of his having resorted directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law.

• Judgment appealed from modified. Defendant-appellee to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs in all instances against appellee Fructuoso Gonzales.

• None.