G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O. CHAVES v. FRUC... http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970aprildecisions.php?

id=123

ChanRobles™ Virtua l Law Libra ry ™ | cha nrobles.com™

Like 2 Tweet Share

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > April 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 -
ROSENDO O. CHAVES v. FRUCTUOSO GONZALES:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

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

ROSENDO O. CHAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRUCTUOSO GONZALES, Defendant-Appellee.

Chaves, Elio, Chaves & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sulpicio E. Platon, for Defendant-Appellee.

SYLLABUS

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.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
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
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
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

1 of 3 12/11/2018, 5:16 PM
G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O. CHAVES v. FRUC...
April-1970 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-27759 April 17, 1970 - CRESENCIANO DE
LA CRUZ v. JULIO CRUZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28310 April 17, 1970 - GUERRA
ENTERPRISES COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF LANAO DEL SUR, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-31604 April 17, 1970 - RUFINO S.
ANTONIO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28749 April 24, 1970 - DOMINGO
SERMONIA, ET AL. v. JOSE T. SANTACERA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-24600 April 27, 1970 - UNIVERSAL
INSURANCE & INDEMNITY COMPANY v. MANILA
RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28457 April 30, 1970 - JOSE SOL BALORIA
v. ONOFRE SISON ABALOS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-22723 April 30, 1970 - CONFEDERATION
OF UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT CORP. AND OFFICES, ET
AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-23688 April 30, 1970 - MANDBUSCO, INC.,
ET AL. v. PABLO FRANCISCO
G.R. No. L-24421 April 30, 1970 - MATIAS GONGON v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-24505 April 30, 1970 - MERALCO
WORKERS UNION v. PANGILALO GAERLAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-25136 April 30, 1970 - SEGUNDA MINA v.
TRANQUILINO VALDEZ
G.R. No. L-25382 April 30, 1970 - FILOMENA C.
PACAÑA, ET AL. v. CEBU AUTO-BUS COMPANY, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-25699 April 30, 1970 - FRANCISCO B.
SEBASTIAN v. MANUEL F. CABAL, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-25798 April 30, 1970 - JOSE A. BELTRAN,
ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-25916 April 30, 1970 - GAUDENCIO A.
BEGOSA v. CHAIRMAN, PHILIPPINE VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-26365 April 30, 1970 - ROSA S. FOJAS, ET
AL. v. ANACLETO NAVARRO
G.R. No. L-26615 April 30, 1970 - LUCIO V. GARCIA,
ET AL. v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-26742 April 30, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. ANTONIO HERAS
G.R. No. L-27181 April 30, 1970 - SOFIA GONZALES
VDA. DE DELIMA v. ELEAZAR G. TIO
G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O.
CHAVES v. FRUCTUOSO GONZALES
G.R. No. L-27489 April 30, 1970 - LEONORA TANTOY
VDA. DE MACABENTA, ET AL. v. DAVAO STEVEDORE
TERMINAL COMPANY
G.R. No. L-27659 April 30, 1970 - PABLO V. PUBLICO
v. METRO DRUG CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-27946 April 30, 1970 - EUGENIO R. RAMOS
v. EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-29595 April 30, 1970 - BASILIO G.
2 of 3
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970aprildecisions.php?id=123
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: j gc:chanrobl es. com. ph
"In the early part of July, 1963, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, who is a typewriter repairer, a
portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing. The defendant was not able to finish the job after
some time despite repeated reminders made by the plaintiff. The defendant merely gave assurances, but
failed to comply with the same. In October, 1963, the defendant asked from the plaintiff the sum of
P6.00 for the purchase of spare parts, which amount the plaintiff gave to the defendant. On October 26,
1963, after getting exasperated with the delay of the repair of the typewriter, the plaintiff went to the
house of the defendant and asked for the return of the typewriter. The defendant delivered the typewriter
in a wrapped package. On reaching home, the plaintiff examined the typewriter returned to him by the
defendant and found out that the same was in shambles, with the interior cover and some parts and
screws missing. On October 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 (Exhibit D). The following day, the
defendant returned to the plaintiff some of the missing parts, the interior cover and the P6.00.
"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, including labor and materials (Exhibit C).
"On August 23, 1965, the plaintiff commenced this 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.
"In his answer as well as in his testimony given before this court, the defendant made no denials of the
facts narrated above, except the claim of the plaintiff that the typewriter was delivered to the defendant
through a certain Julio Bocalin, which the defendant denied allegedly because the typewriter was
delivered to him personally by the plaintiff.
"The repair done on the typewriter by Freixas Business Machines with the total cost of P89.85 should not,
however, be fully chargeable against the defendant. The repair invoice, Exhibit C, shows that the missing
parts had a total value of only P31.10.
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of
P31.10, and the costs of suit.
"SO ORDERED." cral aw vi rt ua1aw l i brary
The error of the court a quo, according to the plaintiff-appellant, Rosendo O. Chaves, is that it awarded
only the value of the missing parts of the typewriter, instead of the whole cost of labor and materials that
went into the repair of the machine, as provided for in Article 1167 of the Civil Code, reading as
follows:j gc:chanrobl es. com. ph
"ART. 1167. 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." cral aw virt ua1aw l i brary
On the other hand, the position of the defendant-appellee, Fructuoso Gonzales, is that 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,
so that plaintiff-appellant should have first filed a petition for the court to fix the period, under Article
1197 of the Civil Code, within which the defendant appellee was to comply with the contract before said
defendant-appellee could be held liable for breach of contract.
Because the plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court and the appellee did not interpose any
appeal, the facts, as found by the trial court, are now conclusive and non-reviewable. 1
The appealed judgment states that the "plaintiff delivered to the defendant . . . a portable typewriter for
routine cleaning and servicing" ; that the defendant was not able to finish the job after some time
despite repeated reminders made by the plaintiff" ; that the "defendant merely gave assurances, but
failed to comply with the same" ; and that "after getting exasperated with the delay of the repair of the
typewriter", the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and asked for its return, which was done.
The inferences derivable from these findings of fact are that the appellant and the appellee had a
perfected contract for cleaning and servicing a typewriter; that they intended that the defendant was to
finish it at some future time although such time was not specified; and that such time had passed
without the work having been accomplished, far the defendant returned the typewriter cannibalized and
unrepaired, which in itself is a breach of his obligation, without demanding that he should be given more
time to finish the job, or compensation for the work he had already done. The time for compliance having
evidently expired, and there being a 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 in this case. Defendant cannot invoke Article 1197 of the Civil Code for he virtually
admitted non-performance by returning the typewriter that he was obliged to repair in a non-working
condition, with essential parts missing. The fixing of a period would thus be a mere formality and would
serve no purpose than to delay (cf. Tiglao. Et. Al. V. Manila Railroad Co. 98 Phil. 18l).
It is clear that the defendant-appellee contravened the tenor of his obligation because he not only did not
repair the typewriter but returned it "in shambles", according to the appealed decision. For such
contravention, as appellant contends, he is liable under Article 1167 of the Civil Code. jam quot, for the
cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner. The cost of the execution of the obligation in this
case should be 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, the defendant-appellee is likewise liable, under Article 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.
Appellant’s claims for moral and temperate damages and attorney’s fees were, however, correctly
rejected by the trial court, for these were not alleged in his complaint (Record on Appeal, pages 1-5).
Claims for damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof
must be proved. 2 The appealed judgment thus made no findings on these claims, nor on the fraud or
malice charged to the appellee. 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. Appellant is bound by
such judgment of the court, a quo, by reason of his having resorted directly to the Supreme Court on
questions of law.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed judgment is hereby modified, by ordering the
defendant-appellee to pay, as he is hereby ordered to pay, the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85, with
interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs in all instances against appellee Fructuoso
Gonzales.
12/11/2018, 5:16 PM
G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O. CHAVES v. FRUC... http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970aprildecisions.php?id=123

GODINEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Villamor, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-31842 April 30, 1970 - CITY FISCAL OF Barredo, J., did not take part.
CEBU v. WOODROW KINTANAR

G.R. No. L-31863 April 30, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE

Endnotes:
PHIL. v. LOPE M. LEDESMA

G.R. No. L-23104 April 30, 1970 - BOLINAO

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. WORKMEN’S 1. Perez v. Araneta, L-18414, 15 July 1968, 24 SCRA 43; Cebu Portland Cement Co. v.
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL. 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.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRoble s™ Virtua l La w Libra ry ™ | chanroble s.com™ RED

3 of 3 12/11/2018, 5:16 PM