[G.R. No. L-27454. April 30, 1970.

ROSENDO O. CHAVES, Plaintiff,

v.
FRUCTUOSO GONZALES, Defendant.

Doctrine:
Article 1167 of the New Civil Code (NCC), if a person obliged to do
something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.

FACTS:

The plaintiff, Rosendo Chavez delivered to the defendant, who is a

typewriter repairer on July 1963. The defendant was not able to finish the
job after some time despite repeated reminders made by the plaintiff. On
October 26, 1963, the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and asked
for the return of the typewriter. The plaintiff examined the typewriter and
found out that the same was in shambles and some parts and screws
missing. 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 and later
returned by the defendant the following day.

"On August 29, 1964, the plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas
Business Machines, and the repair job cost him a total of P89.85. On August
23, 1965, the plaintiff commenced this action before the City Court of
Manila. The lower court rendered a decision ordering the defendant to pay
the plaintiff the sum of P31.10, the value of the missing parts. While, the
contention of the defendant is that he is not liable at all because his contract
with plaintiff did not contain a period, under Article 1197 of the NCC. The
plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

WON the defendant is liable for the total cost of the repair.

HELD:

No, the Defendant is not liable for the total cost of the repair. The defendant
contravened the tenor of his obligation because he not only did not repair
the typewriter but returned it "in shambles". Also, the defendant is likewise
liable, under Article 1170 of the Code, for the cost of the missing parts, in
the amount of P31.10. The appealed judgment is hereby modified, by
ordering the defendant to pay, the plaintiff the sum of P89.85, with interest
at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs against the
Defendant.

Endnotes:

1. Perez v. Araneta, L-18414, 15 July 1968, 24 SCRA 43; Cebu Portland

Cement Co. v. Mun. of Naga L-24116-17, 22 August 1968, 24 SCRA 708.

2. Malonzo v. Galang, L-13851, 27 July 1960; Darang v. Belizear, L-22399,

31 March 1967, 19 SCRA 214.

1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR NON-

PERFORMANCE; FIXING OF PERIOD BEFORE FILING OF COMPLAINT FOR
NON-PERFORMANCE, ACADEMIC.— Where the time for compliance had
expired and there was breach of contract by non-performance, 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.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFENDANT CANNOT INVOKE ARTICLE 1197 OF THE CIVIL
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.— Where the defendant virtually admitted non-
performance of the contract by returning the typewriter that he was obliged
to repair in a non-working condition, with essential parts missing, Article
1197 of the Civil Code of the Philippines cannot be invoked. The fixing of a
period would thus be a mere formality and would serve no purpose than to
delay.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DAMAGES RECOVERABLE; CASE AT BAR.— Where the

defendant-appellee contravened the tenor of his obligation because he not
only did not repair the typewriter but returned it "in shambles,’’ he is liable
for 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. In addition, he is likewise liable under Art. 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.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OR ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT

RECOVERABLE; NOT ALLEGED OR PROVED IN INSTANT CASE.— Claims for
damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the
actual basis thereof must be proved. 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.

5. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; APPEAL FROM COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE TO

SUPREME COURT; ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW REVIEWABLE.— Where the
appellant directly appeals from the decision of the trial court to the Supreme
Court on questions of law, he is bound by the judgment of the court a quo
on its findings of fact.

DECISION

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

This is a direct appeal by the party who prevailed in a suit for breach of oral
contract and recovery of damages but was unsatisfied with the decision
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 65138,
because it awarded him only P31.10 out of his total claim of P690 00 for
actual, temperate and moral damages and attorney’s fees.

The appealed judgment, which is brief, is hereunder quoted in

full:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph