Title
Barzaga vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 115129
Decision Date
Feb 12, 1997
Barzaga's urgent purchase of construction materials for his wife's niche was delayed by Alviar's negligence, causing emotional distress and a postponed burial, leading to a legal claim for damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 115129)

Trial Court Proceedings

Barzaga filed suit in the Regional Trial Court, alleging breach of contract and delay that prevented his wife’s burial on her chosen date. The trial court found Alviar negligent for failing to meet the agreed delivery time, ordered refund of ₱2,110.00 with interest, and awarded temperate, moral, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees.

Appellate Court Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no specific delivery time was stipulated in the invoice and that delivery within a “reasonable time” did not equate to petitioner’s precise schedule. It also opined that Barzaga had sufficient time to complete the niche despite any delay.

Issue

Whether the hardware store incurred actionable delay by failing to deliver construction materials at the time verbally agreed, thereby entitling petitioner to damages for breach of a reciprocal obligation.

Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s liability finding, except for the award of temperate damages.

Reasoning

  1. Verbal Commitment as Contractual Term
    The storekeeper’s assurance that materials would be delivered the next morning, in view of no pending afternoon deliveries, constituted a binding term. Inserting the delivery time in the invoice was unnecessary when a clear verbal agreement existed.

  2. Negligence and Bad Faith
    Respondent’s employees downplayed petitioner’s urgency, withheld the fact that the delivery truck was occupied elsewhere, and made light of his plight. This conduct demonstrated negligence and bad faith in performance.

  3. Foreseeability of Delay
    A flat tire is a foreseeable risk in delivery operations; respondent should have had contingency measures. Failure to guard against such events in a business requiring prompt delivery is negligent.

  4. Time of Essence
    Given the two‐day construction requirement and the fixed funeral date, time was of the essence. A few hours’ delay irreparably disrupted petitioner’s plans and caused him and his family deep anguish.

  5. Damages
    • Actual Damages (Refund) – ₱2,110.00 with legal interest from complaint filing.
    • Moral Damages – ₱20,000.00 for mental anguish, sorrow, and humiliation.
    • Exemplary Damages


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.