11/15/2014 G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O. CHAVES v.

FRUCTUOSO GONZALES : APRIL 1970 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD

|chanrobles.com

ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary

Like

Tweet

Search

PhilippineSupremeCourtJurisprudence>Year1970>April1970Decisions>G.R.No.L27454April30,1970
ROSENDOO.CHAVESv.FRUCTUOSOGONZALES:

Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview
ENBANC
[G.R.No.L27454.April30,1970.]
ROSENDOO.CHAVES,PlaintiffAppellant,v.FRUCTUOSOGONZALES,DefendantAppellee.
Chaves,Elio,Chaves&Associates,forPlaintiffAppellant.
SulpicioE.Platon,forDefendantAppellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW CONTRACTS BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR NONPERFORMANCE FIXING OF PERIOD
BEFOREFILINGOFCOMPLAINTFORNONPERFORMANCE,ACADEMIC.Wherethetimeforcompliance
hadexpiredandtherewasbreachofcontractbynonperformance,itwasacademicfortheplaintiffto
have first petitioned the court to fix a period for the performance of the contract before filing his
complaint.
2.ID.ID.ID.DEFENDANTCANNOTINVOKEARTICLE1197OFTHECIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES.
Wherethedefendantvirtuallyadmittednonperformanceofthecontractbyreturningthetypewriter
that he was obliged to repair in a nonworking 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
formalityandwouldservenopurposethantodelay.

DebtKollectCompany,Inc.

3.ID.ID.ID.DAMAGESRECOVERABLECASEATBAR.Wherethedefendantappelleecontravened
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,
whichisintheamountofP58.75,becausetheobligationorcontractwastorepairit.Inaddition,heis
likewiseliableunderArt.1170oftheCode,forthecostofthemissingparts,intheamountofP31.10,
for in his obligation to repair the typewriter he was bound, but failed or neglected, to return it in the
sameconditionitwaswhenhereceivedit.
4.ID. ID. ID. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OR ATTORNEYS FEES NOT RECOVERABLE NOT ALLEGED OR
PROVED IN INSTANT CASE. Claims for damages and attorneys fees must be pleaded, and the
existenceoftheactualbasisthereofmustbeproved.Asnofindingsoffactweremadeontheclaimsfor
damagesandattorneysfees,thereisnofactualbasisuponwhichtomakeanawardtherefor.
5.REMEDIAL LAW APPEALS APPEAL FROM COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE TO SUPREME COURT ONLY
QUESTIONSOFLAWREVIEWABLE.Wheretheappellantdirectlyappealsfromthedecisionofthetrial
courttotheSupremeCourtonquestionsoflaw,heisboundbythejudgmentofthecourtaquoonits
findingsoffact.
DECISION

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970aprildecisions.php?id=123

1/4

11/15/2014 G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O. CHAVES v. FRUCTUOSO GONZALES : APRIL 1970 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD

ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty
Division

REYES,J.B.L.,J.:
Thisisadirectappealbythepartywhoprevailedinasuitforbreachoforalcontractandrecoveryof
damagesbutwasunsatisfiedwiththedecisionrenderedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,inits
CivilCaseNo.65138,becauseitawardedhimonlyP31.10outofhistotalclaimofP69000foractual,
temperateandmoraldamagesandattorneysfees.
Theappealedjudgment,whichisbrief,ishereunderquotedinfull:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IntheearlypartofJuly,1963,theplaintiffdeliveredtothedefendant,whoisatypewriterrepairer,a
portabletypewriterforroutinecleaningandservicing.Thedefendantwasnotabletofinishthejobafter
some time despite repeated reminders made by the plaintiff. The defendant merely gave assurances,
butfailedtocomplywiththesame.InOctober,1963,thedefendantaskedfromtheplaintiffthesumof
P6.00forthepurchaseofspareparts,whichamounttheplaintiffgavetothedefendant.OnOctober26,
1963,aftergettingexasperatedwiththedelayoftherepairofthetypewriter,theplaintiffwenttothe
house of the defendant and asked for the return of the typewriter. The defendant delivered the
typewriterinawrappedpackage.Onreachinghome,theplaintiffexaminedthetypewriterreturnedto
himbythedefendantandfoundoutthatthesamewasinshambles,withtheinteriorcoverandsome
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
followingday,thedefendantreturnedtotheplaintiffsomeofthemissingparts,theinteriorcoverand
theP6.00.

"On August 29, 1964, the plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business Machines, and the
repairjobcosthimatotalofP89.85,includinglaborandmaterials(ExhibitC).
"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
temperatedamages,P500.00formoraldamages,andP500.00asattorneysfees.
"Inhisansweraswellasinhistestimonygivenbeforethiscourt,thedefendantmadenodenialsofthe
factsnarratedabove,excepttheclaimoftheplaintiffthatthetypewriterwasdeliveredtothedefendant
through a certain Julio Bocalin, which the defendant denied allegedly because the typewriter was
deliveredtohimpersonallybytheplaintiff.
"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
missingpartshadatotalvalueofonlyP31.10.
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of
P31.10,andthecostsofsuit.
"SOORDERED."

cralawvirtua1awlibrary

Theerrorofthecourtaquo,accordingtotheplaintiffappellant,RosendoO.Chaves,isthatitawarded
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:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART.1167.Ifapersonobligedtodosomethingfailstodoit,thesameshallbeexecutedathiscost.
This same rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the obligation.
Furthermoreitmaybedecreedthatwhathasbeenpoorlydoneheundone."
cralawvirtua1awlibrary

Ontheotherhand,thepositionofthedefendantappellee,FructuosoGonzales,isthatheisnotliableat
all, not even for the sum of P31.10, because his contract with plaintiffappellant did not contain a
period,sothatplaintiffappellantshouldhavefirstfiledapetitionforthecourttofixtheperiod,under
Article 1197 of the Civil Code, within which the defendant appellee was to comply with the contract
beforesaiddefendantappelleecouldbeheldliableforbreachofcontract.
Because the plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court and the appellee did not interpose any
appeal,thefacts,asfoundbythetrialcourt,arenowconclusiveandnonreviewable.1
Theappealedjudgmentstatesthatthe"plaintiffdeliveredtothedefendant...aportabletypewriterfor
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
failedtocomplywiththesame"andthat"aftergettingexasperatedwiththedelayoftherepairofthe
typewriter",theplaintiffwenttothehouseofthedefendantandaskedforitsreturn,whichwasdone.
The inferences derivable from these findings of fact are that the appellant and the appellee had a
perfectedcontractforcleaningandservicingatypewriterthattheyintendedthatthedefendantwasto
finish it at some future time although such time was not specified and that such time had passed
withouttheworkhavingbeenaccomplished,farthedefendantreturnedthetypewritercannibalizedand
unrepaired,whichinitselfisabreachofhisobligation,withoutdemandingthatheshouldbegivenmore
time to finish the job, or compensation for the work he had already done. The time for compliance
havingevidentlyexpired,andtherebeingabreachofcontractbynonperformance,itwasacademicfor
theplaintifftohavefirstpetitionedthecourttofixaperiodfortheperformanceofthecontractbefore
filinghiscomplaintinthiscase.DefendantcannotinvokeArticle1197oftheCivilCodeforhevirtually
admitted nonperformance by returning the typewriter that he was obliged to repair in a nonworking
condition,withessentialpartsmissing.Thefixingofaperiodwouldthusbeamereformalityandwould
servenopurposethantodelay(cf.Tiglao.Et.Al.V.ManilaRailroadCo.98Phil.18l).
It is clear that the defendantappellee 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,asappellantcontends,heisliableunderArticle1167oftheCivilCode.jamquot,forthe
costofexecutingtheobligationinapropermanner.Thecostoftheexecutionoftheobligationinthis
caseshouldbethecostofthelabororserviceexpendedintherepairofthetypewriter,whichisinthe
amountofP58.75.becausetheobligationorcontractwastorepairit.
Inaddition,thedefendantappelleeislikewiseliable,underArticle1170oftheCode,forthecostofthe
missingparts,intheamountofP31.10,forinhisobligationtorepairthetypewriterhewasbound,but
failedorneglected,toreturnitinthesameconditionitwaswhenhereceivedit.
Appellants claims for moral and temperate damages and attorneys fees were, however, correctly
rejectedbythetrialcourt,forthesewerenotallegedinhiscomplaint(RecordonAppeal,pages15).
Claimsfordamagesandattorneysfeesmustbepleaded,andtheexistenceoftheactualbasisthereof
mustbeproved.2Theappealedjudgmentthusmadenofindingsontheseclaims,noronthefraudor
malice charged to the appellee. As no findings of fact were made on the claims for damages and

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970aprildecisions.php?id=123

2/4

11/15/2014 G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O. CHAVES v. FRUCTUOSO GONZALES : APRIL 1970 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD
attorneysfees,thereisnofactualbasisuponwhichtomakeanawardtherefor.Appellantisboundby
suchjudgmentofthecourt,aquo,byreasonofhishavingresorteddirectlytotheSupremeCourton
questionsoflaw.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed judgment is hereby modified, by ordering the
defendantappellee to pay, as he is hereby ordered to pay, the plaintiffappellant the sum of P89.85,
with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs in all instances against appellee
FructuosoGonzales.
Concepcion,C.J.,Dizon,Makalintal,Zaldivar,Castro,Fernando,TeehankeeandVillamor,JJ.,concur.
Barredo,J.,didnottakepart.
Endnotes:

1.Perez v. Araneta, L18414, 15 July 1968, 24 SCRA 43 Cebu Portland Cement Co. v.
Mun.ofNagaL2411617,22August1968,24SCRA708.

2. Malonzo v. Galang, L13851, 27 July 1960 Darang v. Belizear, L22399, 31 March

1967,19SCRA214.

GRGR RuleVSLaw GRVS

DigestGR
CaseGR CourtGR
NoGR
ManilaGR
CivilCourt CourtCases Typewriter LawCosts

BacktoHome|BacktoMain

G.R. No. L27759 April 17, 1970 CRESENCIANO DE

LACRUZv.JULIOCRUZ,ETAL.
G.R. No. L28310 April 17, 1970 GUERRA
ENTERPRISES COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCEOFLANAODELSUR,ETAL.

QUICKSEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

G.R. No. L31604 April 17, 1970 RUFINO S.

ANTONIO,JR.v.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,ETAL.

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

G.R. No. L28749 April 24, 1970 DOMINGO

SERMONIA,ETAL.v.JOSET.SANTACERA,ETAL.

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

G.R. No. L24600 April 27, 1970 UNIVERSAL

INSURANCE & INDEMNITY COMPANY v. MANILA
RAILROADCOMPANY,ETAL.

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

G.R.No.L23688April30,1970MANDBUSCO,INC.,
ETAL.v.PABLOFRANCISCO

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

G.R.No.L24421April30,1970MATIASGONGONv.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.

2013

2014

G.R.No.L28457April30,1970JOSESOLBALORIA
v.ONOFRESISONABALOS,ETAL.
G.R. No. L22723 April 30, 1970 CONFEDERATION
OF UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT CORP. AND OFFICES, ET
AL.v.ABELARDOSUBIDO,ETAL.

2012

G.R. No. L24505 April 30, 1970 MERALCO

WORKERSUNIONv.PANGILALOGAERLAN,ETAL.
G.R.No.L25136April 30, 1970 SEGUNDA MINA v.
TRANQUILINOVALDEZ

Main Indices of the Library --->

Go!

G.R. No. L25382 April 30, 1970 FILOMENA C.

PACAA,ETAL.v.CEBUAUTOBUSCOMPANY,ETAL.

G.R. No. L25699 April 30, 1970 FRANCISCO B.

SEBASTIANv.MANUELF.CABAL,ETAL.
G.R. No. L25798 April 30, 1970 JOSE A. BELTRAN,
ETAL.v.ENRIQUEMEDINA,ETAL.
G.R. No. L25916 April 30, 1970 GAUDENCIO A.
BEGOSA v. CHAIRMAN, PHILIPPINE VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION,ETAL.
G.R.No.L26365April30,1970ROSAS.FOJAS,ET
AL.v.ANACLETONAVARRO
G.R. No. L26615 April30, 1970 LUCIO V. GARCIA,
ETAL.v.CONRADOM.VASQUEZ,ETAL.
G.R. No. L26742 April 30, 1970 REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.v.ANTONIOHERAS
G.R. No. L27181 April 30, 1970 SOFIA GONZALES
VDA.DEDELIMAv.ELEAZARG.TIO
G.R. No. L27454 April 30, 1970 ROSENDO O.
CHAVESv.FRUCTUOSOGONZALES
G.R.No.L27489April 30, 1970 LEONORA TANTOY
VDA. DE MACABENTA, ET AL. v. DAVAO STEVEDORE
TERMINALCOMPANY
G.R.No.L27659April30,1970PABLOV.PUBLICO
v.METRODRUGCORPORATION,ETAL.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970aprildecisions.php?id=123

3/4

11/15/2014 G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 - ROSENDO O. CHAVES v. FRUCTUOSO GONZALES : APRIL 1970 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD
G.R.No.L27946April30,1970EUGENIOR.RAMOS
v.EDUARDOZ.ROMUALDEZ,ETAL.
G.R. No. L29595 April 30, 1970 BASILIO G.
GODINEZ,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. L31842 April 30, 1970 CITY FISCAL OF
CEBUv.WOODROWKINTANAR
G.R. No. L31863 April 30, 1970 REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.v.LOPEM.LEDESMA
G.R. No. L23104 April 30, 1970 BOLINAO
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
v.
WORKMENS
COMPENSATIONCOMMISSION,ETAL.

Recruitment
Canada
7 urgent openings. No
timewasters! Recruitment
Canada

Copyright19982014ChanRoblesPublishingCompany

Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970aprildecisions.php?id=123

ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary|chanrobles.com

RED

4/4