G.R. No. L-27454 - Chaves vs. Gonzales

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27454)

Key Dates and Procedural History

Relevant factual dates: early July 1963 (delivery of typewriter for servicing); October 26, 1963 (defendant returned typewriter in a damaged condition); October 29–30, 1963 (demand letter and partial return of parts and P6.00); August 29, 1964 (typewriter repaired by Freixas Business Machines at a total cost of P89.85); August 23, 1965 (plaintiff filed suit in City Court of Manila). Trial court awarded P31.10 (value of missing parts). Plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court; the defendant did not appeal the trial court’s factual findings.

Decision Date and Governing Constitution

Decision date: April 30, 1970. Because the decision predates 1990, the appropriate governing constitution at that time is the 1935 Philippine Constitution for contextual reference; substantive disposition, however, rests on applicable provisions of the Civil Code.

Facts Found by the Trial Court (Conclusive)

The trial court found that the plaintiff delivered a portable typewriter to the defendant for routine cleaning and servicing. The defendant repeatedly failed to complete the work despite reminders and assurances. The defendant requested P6.00 for spare parts and accepted it. After delays, the defendant returned the typewriter in a “shambles” with interior cover and some parts and screws missing. The plaintiff demanded return of missing parts and money; the defendant later returned some parts and the P6.00. The invoice from Freixas Business Machines showed a total repair cost of P89.85, with missing parts valued at P31.10. The trial court awarded only P31.10 to the plaintiff. Because the defendant did not appeal, these factual findings became conclusive on appeal.

Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff was required to first petition the court to fix a period for performance under Article 1197 of the Civil Code before holding the defendant liable for nonperformance.
Whether the defendant is liable for the full cost of repairing the typewriter (labor and materials) under Article 1167 of the Civil Code, or only for the value of the missing parts.
Whether the plaintiff proved and properly pleaded claims for temperate and moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Applicability of Article 1197 — Fixing a Period for Performance

Article 1197 provides for the court to fix a period when none was stipulated, but the Supreme Court held that the requirement to petition for a period is inapplicable where the obligor has effectively conceded nonperformance by returning the thing in an unusable and cannibalized condition. Given the trial court’s unappealed findings that the defendant returned the typewriter unrepaired and with essential parts missing, the time for performance had effectively expired and further fixation of a period would have been a mere formality serving only to delay relief. Thus Article 1197 could not be invoked by the defendant to avoid liability.

Application of Article 1167 and Article 1170 — Measure of Liability

Article 1167 (if a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the thing shall be executed at his cost; and the same rule applies if he does it contrary to the tenor of the obligation) was applied to hold the defendant liable for the proper execution of the obligation he had assumed, namely the cleaning and servicing labor. The Court determined that the cost of executing the obligation properly is the reasonable cost of labor and service expended to effect the repair, quantified at P58.75 according to the repair invoice. Separately, Article 1170 (liability for wrongful acts) and the obligation to return the thing in the same condition imposed liability for the loss of parts; the value of the missing parts was P31.10. The Court therefore treated the loss of parts and the cost to have the machine properly repaired as distinct heads of recovery. Combining both heads produced the full repair cost reflected in the Freixas invoice, P89.85. The Supreme Court modified the appealed judgment accordingly and ordered payment of P89.85 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint.

Claims for Moral and Temperate Damages and Attorney’s Fees

The trial court did not make findings on fraud, malice, or other facts that would support temperate or moral damages, nor did it find facts supporting an award of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed that claims for damages and attorney’

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-27454)

Case Caption and Citation

143 Phil. 317; G.R. No. L-27454; April 30, 1970.
Title as presented in the source: ROSENDO O. CHAVES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. FRUCTUOSO GONZALES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Decision authored by Justice Reyes, J.B.L.

Procedural Posture

Direct appeal to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff-appellant, Rosendo O. Chaves, who had prevailed in the trial court but was dissatisfied with the limited damages awarded.
Trial court: Court of First Instance of Manila, Civil Case No. 65138.
Trial court awarded plaintiff P31.10 (value of missing parts) and costs.
Plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court; the defendant-appellee did not appeal.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case and modified the appealed judgment.

Facts as Found by the Trial Court (Conclusive)

Early July 1963: Plaintiff delivered to defendant, a typewriter repairer, a portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing.
Defendant failed to finish the job after some time despite repeated reminders by the plaintiff; defendant gave assurances but did not comply.
October 1963: Defendant requested P6.00 from plaintiff for spare parts; plaintiff gave P6.00.
October 26, 1963: Plaintiff, exasperated by delay, went to defendant's house and asked for return of the typewriter; defendant delivered the typewriter in a wrapped package.
Upon examination at home, plaintiff found the typewriter in shambles, with the interior cover and some parts and screws missing.
October 29, 1963: Plaintiff sent a letter to defendant demanding return of missing parts, the interior cover and the sum of P6.00 (Exhibit D).
October 30, 1963: Defendant returned to plaintiff some of the missing parts, the interior cover and the P6.00.
August 29, 1964: Plaintiff had the typewriter repaired by Freixas Business Machines at a total cost of P89.85, including labor and materials (Exhibit C).
August 23, 1965: Plaintiff commenced action before the City Court of Manila demanding P90.00 as actual and compensatory damages, P100.00 for temperate damages, P500.00 for moral damages, and P500.00 as attorney's fees.
Defendant, in answer and testimony, made no denials of the foregoing facts except he denied the claim that the typewriter was delivered through a third person (Julio Bocalin), alleging instead that plaintiff personally delivered it to him.

Trial Court Judgment and Its Content

Trial court concluded that the missing parts had a total value of P31.10 as shown on the repair invoice (Exhibit C).
Judgment ordered defendant to pay plaintiff P31.10 and costs of suit.
Trial court did not award temperate or moral damages, nor attorney's fees.

Parties' Contentions on Appeal

Plaintiff-appellant (Rosendo O. Chaves):
- Contended error in the trial court awarding only value of missing parts (P31.10) rather than the whole cost of labor and materials expended in repairing the typewriter.
- Relied on Article 1167 of the Civil Code: "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 be undone."
Defendant-appellee (Fructuoso Gonzales):
- Argued he was not liable at all, not even for P31.10, because the contract did not contain a period for performance; plaintiff should have first filed a petition for the court to fix a period under Article 1197 of the Civil Code before holding defendant liable for breach.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether defendant-appellee is liable for the full cost of repairing the typewriter (labor and materials totaling P89.85) or only for the value of missing parts (P31.10).
Whether Article 1197 (fixing of period for performance) barred recovery because no term was specified in the contract.
Whether claims for temperate and moral damages and attorney's fees could be awarded despite the trial court's absence of findings and whether such claims were properly pleaded and proved.
Whether defendant could invoke Article 1197 when he returned the typewriter in a cannibalized, non-working condition.

Applicable Legal Provisions Cited

Article 1167, Civil Code (quoted in the