Chavez v. Gonzales, G. R. No.

27454 April 30, 1974

ROSENDO O. CHAVES – Plaintiff

FRUCTUOSO GONZALES – Defendant

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 P6.00 for the purchase of spare parts.
 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.
 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.
 Days after, 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.
 The following day, the defendant returned to the plaintiff some of the missing parts, the interior cover
and the P6.00.
 In August 1964, the plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business Machines, and the repair job
cost him a total of P89.85.
 In August 1965, the plaintiff commenced an action 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.
 But the court awarded him only P31.10 out of his total claim of P690 00 for actual, temperate and moral
damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: WON defendant is liable under Article 1167 and 1170 of the NCC?

RULING: YES

 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 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.
 Hence, the defendant-appellee 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.

NOTES:
Re Period

 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.
 The fixing of a period would thus be a mere formality and would serve no purpose than to delay

Re Damages & Atty’s Fees

 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.

G.A. Machineries v. Yaptinchay, G.R. No. L- 30965, November 29, 1983

FACTS:

 Sometime early in January 1962 appellant GAMI, thru a duly authorized agent, offered to sell a brand-new
Fordson Diesel Engine to appellee Horacio Yaptinchay, owner of the freight hauling business styled 'Hi-
Way Express'.
 Relying on the representations of appellant's representative that the engine offered for sale was brand
new, appellee agreed to purchase the same at the price of P7,590.00.
 Pursuant to the contract of sale thus entered into, appellant delivered to appellee, one (1) Fordson Diesel
Engine assembly, Model 6-D, with subject to the standard warranties, particularly the representation,
relied upon by appellee, that the same was brand new. Said engine was installed by appellant in Unit No.
6 of the HiWay Express.
 Within the week after its delivery, however, the engine in question started to have a series of
malfunctions which necessitated successive trips to appellant's repair shop.
 Thereafter, the malfunctioning persisted and, on inspection, appellee's mechanic noticed a worn out
screw which made appellee suspicious about the age of the engine.
 This prompted appellee, thru his lawyer, to write appellant a letter, protesting that the engine was not
brand-new as represented.
 He then sought the assistance of the PC Criminal Investigation Service to check on the authenticity of the
serial number of the engine, with due notice to appellant.
 Verification tests revealed that the original motor number of the engine was tampered.
 Convinced that a fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the engine had been perpetrated
upon him, appellee made demands from appellant for indemnification for damages and eventually
instituted the present suit.

ISSUE: WON GAMI committed a breach of contract against Yaptinchay?

RULING: YES
 We agree with the Court of Appeals that:

"Indeed, it would be too much to say that the successive malfunctions of the engine, the
defects and other discrepancies therein that cropped up so soon after its delivery, the
numerous trips it had to appellant's repair shop, the demonstrable tampering with its serial
 number, and its ultimate breakdown despite appellant's attempts to put it into good working
order could be attributed to mere coincidence. If all these mean anything at all, it can only
be that the engine aforesaid was not really brand new.

 The misrepresentation of the quality of the subject Fordson diesel engine is tantamount to fraud or bad
faith.

NOTES:

Re Actual Damages

 The next question refers to the award of actual damages in the amount of P54,000.48. This amount
covers the probable income which the respondent failed to realize because of the breach of contract. Is
the award of damages in the form of lucro cessante justified?
 Article 2200 of the Civil Code entitles the respondent to recover as compensatory damages not only the
value of the loss suffered but also prospective profits while Article 2201 entitles the respondent to
recover all damages which may be attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
 However, in order to recover this kind of damages, the plaintiff must prove his case – “The benefit to be
derived from a contract which one of the parties has absolutely failed to perform is of necessity to some
extent, a matter of speculation, but the injured party is not to be denied all remedy for that reason alone.
He must produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible and if that evidence warrants the
inference that he has been damaged by the loss of profits which he might with reasonable certainty have
anticipated but for the defendant's wrongful act, he is entitled to recover."
 Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we find the evidence of the respondent insufficient to be
considered within the purview of "best evidence."
 The bare assertion of the respondent that he lost about P54,000.00 and the accompanying documentary
evidence presented to prove the amount lost are inadequate if not speculative.