Chaves v Gonzales (30 April 1970)

Reyes, JBL, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff Chaves brought to defendant Gonzales his portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing
sometime in July 1963.
Defendant was not able to finish the job despite repeated reminders. He merely gave assurances but failed to
comply.
In October 1963, defendant asked P6.00 from plaintiff for spare parts, which Chaves gave.
Exasperated, Chaves demanded the return of the typewriter. It was returned wrapped in a package. Upon
opening, he found the same in shambles with the interior cover and some screws missing.
Chaves then wrote to defendant for the return of the [arts as well as the P6.00. The following day, defendant
returned some of the parts as well as the amount.
Chaves then went to Freixas Business Machines to have the typewriter repaired, which cost him P89.95.
He then commenced an action before the CFI of Manila for damages (P90 Actual; P100 Temperate; P500 Moral;
P500 Attys Fees)
CFI Manila: the total cost of repairs should not be fully charged to defendant; the repair invoice only shows
P31.10 as the cost of the missing parts.
Plaintiff: CFI erred in not awarding the whole cost of the labor and materials, as provided by NCC 1167:
o 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 be undone.
Defendant: not liable at all because the contract with plaintiff did not contain a period; plaintiff should have first
filed with the court a petition to fix the period, in accordance with NCC 1197.
ISSUES + RULING:
WoN defendant is liable. YES.
It was clear that there was a breach of the obligation for the cleaning and servicing of the typewriter.
Since the time for compliance has evidently passed, it would already have been moot for plaintiff to petition the
court to fix the period for compliance before filing the present action.
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.
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 (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.
However, plaintiff failed to allege the claims for moral and temperate damages and attorneys fees in the
complaint. These damages must be pleaded and proved.
DISPOSITION: 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.