G.R. No.

L-27454 April 30, 1970

Rosendo O. Chavez, plaintiff-appellant vs. Fructuoso Gonzales, defendant-appellee REYES, J.B.L., J.:

FACTS:
On July 1963, Rosendo Chavez brought his typewriter to Fructuoso Gonzales a typewriter repairman for the cleaning and servicing of the said
typewriter but the latter was not able to finish the job.
During October 1963, the plaintiff gave the amount of P6.00 to the defendant which the latter asked from the plaintiff for the purchase of spare
parts, because of the delay of the repair the plaintiff decided to recover the typewriter to the defendant which he wrapped it like a package.
When the plaintiff reached their home he opened it and examined that some parts and screws was lost.
That on October 29, 1963 the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant for the return of the missing parts, the interior cover and the sum of P6.00
(Exhibit D). The following day, the defendant returned to the plaintiff some of the missing parts, the interior cover and the P6.00. The plaintiff
brought his typewriter to Freixas Business Machines and the repair cost the amount of P89.85.

Petitioner commenced this action on August 23, 1965 in the City Court of Manila, demanding from the defendant the payment of P90.00 as actual
and compensatory damages, P100.00 for temperate damages, P500.00 for moral damages, and P500.00 as attorneys fees.
Defendant made no denials of the facts narrated above, except the claim of the plaintiff that the cost of the repair made by Freixas Business
Machines be fully chargeable against him.

ISSUE: WON the defendant is liable for the total cost of the repair made by Freixas Business Machines with the plaintiff typewriter?

RULING:
No, he is not liable for the total cost of the repair made by Freixas Business Machines instead he is only liable for the cost of the missing parts
and screws. The defendant contravened the tenor of his obligation in repairing the typewriter of the plaintiff that he fails to repair it and returned
it with the missing parts, he is liable under ART. 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.

This same rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the obligation. Furthermore it may be decreed that what has been
poorly done he undone.