Case Digest (G.R. No. 115129) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On 21 December 1990, petitioner Ignacio Barzaga visited the hardware store of respondent Angelito Alviar in Dasmariñas, Cavite, to inquire whether construction materials for his deceased wife’s niche could be delivered immediately. The storekeeper, Marina Boncales, explained that pending deliveries might delay his order until the next day. Early on 22 December, Barzaga returned, emphasized that his workers were already at the cemetery and that the materials must arrive by 8:00 a.m., and paid P2,110.00 in full. Boncales assured him of timely delivery. The truck failed to appear at 8:00 or 9:00 a.m., and despite repeated assurances by store employees, the materials did not arrive until after Barzaga had dismissed his laborers, filed a police complaint, and canceled the transaction. He secured materials elsewhere that afternoon, but darkness halted work until 23 December, and the niche could not be completed before Christmas because laborers rested on 25 December. His wife’s interm Case Digest (G.R. No. 115129) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and circumstances
- On 19 December 1990, petitioner’s wife died after prolonged illness and expressed her wish to be interred before Christmas.
- Petitioner sought materials for constructing a granite niche at Memorial Cemetery in Dasmariñas, Cavite, to honor her dying wish.
- Transaction details
- On 21 December at 3:00 PM, petitioner inquired at respondent Alviar’s hardware store about immediate delivery; storekeeper Boncales stated pending deliveries might delay his order until the next day.
- On 22 December at 7:00 AM, petitioner returned, emphasized delivery by 8:00 AM (his workers were already on site), and paid P2,110 in full after receiving assurance.
- Delivery failures and cancellation
- Delivery promised for 8:00 AM did not arrive; follow-up visits at 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM yielded only assurances, prompting petitioner to file a police blotter complaint.
- With no materials forthcoming, petitioner canceled the order, bought elsewhere that afternoon, but could only start construction on 23 December; the niche was ready on 26 December, delaying burial by 2½ days.
- Procedural history
- On 21 January 1991, petitioner demanded recompense; respondent did not reply.
- RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner awarding refund, temperate, moral, litigation and attorney’s fees; CA reversed, finding no agreed delivery time.
Issues:
- Whether a specific delivery time was agreed upon despite its omission from the invoices.
- Whether respondent’s failure to deliver on time constituted negligence and breach of contract.
- What damages (refund, moral, exemplary, temperate, litigation expenses, attorney’s fees) are recoverable for the delay and mental anguish.
- Whether temperate damages are proper absent proof of actual pecuniary loss.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)