You are on page 1of 2

Chaves v.

Gonzales

FACTS:

 The plaintiff, Rosendo Chaves, delivered to the defendant, Fructuoso Gonzales, a typewriter
repairer, a portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing. The defendant was not able to
finish the job after some time despite the repeated reminders made by the plaintiff.
 The defendant merely gave assurances but failed to comply. In Oct. 1963, the defendant asked the
plaintiff the sum of P6.00 for the purchase of spare parts with which the plaintiff gave the
defendant.
 On Oct. 26, 1963, the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and asked instead that the
typewriter be returned to him. The defendant delivered the typewriter in a wrapped package but
when plaintiff examined the typewriter returned, he found out that it was in shambles, with
missing interior cover and screws.
 On Oct. 29, 1963, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant formally demanding the return of the
missing parts, the interior cover, and the sum of P6.00. The following day, the defendant returned
to the plaintiff some of the missing parts, the interior cover, and the P6.00.
 The plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business on Aug. 29, 1964 which costs him a
total of P89.85, including labor and materials.
 Plaintiff commenced an action before 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 attorney’s fees. The defendant made no
denials of the facts narrated except on the claim of the plaintiff that the typewriter was delivered
to the defendant through Julio Bocalin as the typewriter was delivered by the plaintiff himself.
The court ruled and ordered defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P31.10.
 Plaintiff elevated the appeal to the SC
 Plaintiff-appellant’s position: the court a quo erred in awarding only the value of the
missing parts of the typewriter instead the whole cost of labor and materials that went
into the repair of the machine and invoked Art. 1167 of the Civil Code as basis,” 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.”
 Defendant-appellee’s position: He is not liable at all, not even for the sum of P31.10
because his contract with plaintiff-appellant did not contain a period and that plaintiff-
appellee should have filed a petition to fix the period as provided in Art. 1197 of the Civil
Code which provides that the defendant-appellee was to comply with the contract before
defendant-appellee could be held liable for breach of contract.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is liable for the total cost of repair made by Freixas Business
Machines on plaintiff’s typewriter

RATIO: SC modified the appealed judgment and ordered the defendant-appellee to pay the
plaintiff-apellant the sum of P89.85, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint.
SC’s Contention:

 The plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee had a perfected contract for cleaning and servicing
a typewriter where it was intended that the defendant was to finish it at some future time although
no time was specified. However, time had passed without the work having been accomplished
and eventually the defendant-appellee returned the typewriter cannibalized and unrepaired which
can be considered a breach of the defendant-appellee’s obligation, without demanding that he
should be given more time to finish the job, or compensation for the work he had already done.
 Defendant-appellee cannot invoke Art. 1197 of the Civil Code because he virtually admitted
non-performance by returning the typewriter that he was obliged to repair in a non-working
condition, with essential parts missing. Fixing a period would serve no purpose than to delay.
 SC held that the defendant-appellee contravened the tenor of his obligation because he not
only did not repair the typewriter but returned it “in shambles” and is liable under Art. 1167 of
the Civil Code. Cost of the execution of the obligation should be the cost of the labor or service
expended in the repair of the typewriter which is P58.75 because the obligation or contract was to
repair it.
 Furthermore, SC held that defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of the missing parts, in the
amount of P31,10 as provided in Art. 1170 of the Civil Code. The defendant-appellee was
obliged to repair the typewriter but failed or neglected to return it in the same condition it was
received.
 SC contended that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to moral and temperate damages and
attorney’s fees as these were not alleged in the complaint.
 Claims for damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded and existence of the
actual basis must be proved.

You might also like