Dec 21 3pm - Barzaga went to the hardware store

for inquiry. Storekeeper told him that she has to

verify if they have other orders. Barzaga left.
22 7am Barzaga returned to follow up his
purchase. He told them that the parts must be
delivered 8am that morning and that time is of the
essence. Storekeeper agreed and Barzaga paid Php
2,110. Barzaga left for the cemetery.
8am No delivery made
9am Barzaga went back to the store.
Storekeeper assured him that the materials are on
its way. Barzaga left.
10am Still no materials. Barzaga went back to
the store but was given the said answer.
After sever hours Barzaga dismissed the
workers and filed a complaint. The materials came
but were not ready for loading. Barzaga cancelled
the purchase.
-Barzaga purchased from another store but was
unable to finish the niche. Burial was made 26th of
December, 2 and a half day days behind schedule.

Jan 21 - Barzaga asked for damages from the

store.
- Alviar says that there is no legal delay
because there is no specific stipulated time of
delivery.
- Invoices does not contain any stipulated time.
- Truck suffered a flat tire and Barzagas
cancellation caused the delay since delivery
were made at 10 30am.
- RTC then ordered Alviar pay damages to
Barzaga but on appeal, COA reversed the
ruling saying there is no contractual
commitment as there is no written evidences
of stipulated time of delivery. Also, they say
that there is still sufficient time to construct the
niche.
- However, after assiduous scrutiny, it was
concluded that Alviar was negligent and
incurred in delay. This entitles Bargaza for
indemnification.
- Also, there was a specific time agreed upon
which Barzaga told the storekeeper at the 21st
of December. It was also not required for the
invoices to contain the specific time of
delivery. Storekeeper admitted it was their
custom.

- Aviar responds with fortuitous even but he

has no right to manipulate petitioners
timetable with his own.
- The fortuitous event (flat tire) wasnt even
fortuitous and Aviar must be prepared for
contingency.
- It was also said that the truck came all the way
from Langcaan, Dasmarinas, Cavite. This was
withheld by the storekeeper during the initial
negotiation. As such, storekeeper is in bad
faith.
CONCLUSION:
- This is the case of non-performance of a
reciprocal obligation. Barzaga already paid so
Aviar has to comply with his obligation too.
- It is incorrect to say that the contract is one
which does not specify the time for delivery. In
fact, it is time is of the essence in this contract.
- Also, Aviar may have performend his
obligation but it was contrary to the terms
thereof.
- Evidences that legal delay had occurred:
o Failure of Aviar to perform his obligation in
accordance with Barzagas terms.

o Demand has been made

Demand isnt even required as time is
of the essence and Barzaga made
Aviar and his team aware of such.
Also, it is not necessary for the
contract to categorically state that time
is of the essence, intent is sufficient.
(Hanlon vs. Hauserman, 40 Phil. 766)
Also, demand is not even required as
Barzaga has already paid, putting
Aviar in delay.
o Failure of Aviar to comply with demand
- Aviar is at fault of fraud as his storekeeper
does not disclose the whereabouts of the truck
(Dasmarinas, Cavite). Had Bargaza known
about it, he would not have entered into the
contract in the first place.