CHAVES v. GONZALES

 

Chaves v. Gonzales 

G.R. L-27454 

FACTS: 

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. 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.

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 plaintiff found out that the typewriter was in shambles with some parts missing. Chaves demanded the return of the missing parts and the sum of P6.00, which Gonzales returned.

 

Later on, 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. 

Chavez then commenced this an action before the City Court of Manila, demanding from the Gonzales the payment of P90.00 as actual and compensatory damages.

 

The RTC granted the petition and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amount of P31.10 which is the total value of the missing parts. 

 

Chavez contended that he should be awarded the whole cost of labor and materials as provided for in Article 1167 of the Civil Code. Thus, this petition.

 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Chavez is entitled to the whole cost of labor and materials that went into the repair of the typewriter?

 

 

RULING:

YES.

Article 1167 of the Civil Code states:  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. 

 

The inferences derivable from these findings of fact are that the Chavez and the Gonzalez had a perfected contract for cleaning and servicing a typewriter, intended to be completed at some future time although such time was not specified, that such time had passed, and that the typewriter was returned cannibalized and unrepaired, which in itself is a breach of his obligation. The time for compliance had evidently expired and there being a breach of contract by non-performance. It is clear that the Gonzales-appellee contravened the tenor of his obligation.

 

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, Gonzales is likewise liable under Article 1170 of the Code for the cost of the missing parts 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.

 

The appealed judgment is modified. Gonzales to pay Chavez the sum of P89.85 with interest.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more