Barzaga vs.

CA

Facts: Ignacio Barzaga’s wife succumbed to a debilitating ailment and died on December 19, 1990.
Forewarned, she expressed her wish to be buried before Christmas. After her death on December 21, 1990
3pm, Ignacio Barzaga (Petitioner) went to the hardware store of Angelito Alviar (Respondent) to inquire
about the availability of certain materials to be used in building his wife’s niche. Also asking if materials
could be delivered at once, the Respondent’s employee replied that if the store had pending deliveries that
afternoon then all subsequent purchases made would be delivered the following day.
Petitioner left that day and returned the following day on December 22, 1990, 7am. Petitioner came to
follow up his purchase of construction materials, stressing to the employees of the hardware store that he
would need the materials to be delivered to the cemetery (only a kilometer away from the hardware
store) by 8 am as he would have hired workers who would start working at the site. Respondent’s
employee agreed to deliver at the specified time, date and place and with such assurance Barzaga
purchased the materials and paid in full P 2,100.00.

However, the materials were not delivered on time. The petitioner went to the store several times to ask
for the delivery. Eventually, the Petitioner was forced to dismiss his hired workers since his materials did
not arrive. Petitioner determined to fulfill his wife’s request, purchased materials from other stores. After
his wife was buried, Petitioner sued the Respondent for damages of delay. Respondent claims that delay
happened because of a fortuitous event since the truck tires were flat.

Issue: Was there a delay in the performance of the Respondent’s obligation?

Held: Yes. The Respondent was negligent and incurred delay in performing his obligations. The
Petitioner suffered as a consequence of the delay or contractual breach. There was a specific time, date
and place agreed upon the delivery of the materials. The said condition was agreed upon by both the
Petitioner and the Respondent.
There is a non performance of a reciprocal obligation since according to Article 1169, the moment one of
the parties fulfill his obligation, delay by the other begins. In this contract of purchase and sale, the
Petitioner had already accomplished his part which is the payment of the price. It falls onto the
Respondent now to immediately fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods otherwise delay would
attach. An award of moral damages is incumbent in this case as the Petitioner has suffered gravely.