lOMoAR cPSD| 3774533

Art. 1715 WORK AND LABOR 685

Contract for a Piece of Work

Philam, in seeking to recover damages claims, that it

incurred additional expenses caused by the resurvey of the
property, the additional grading work done in the new road lay-
out, the charges in the design of the buildings and residen- tial
houses to be constructed, and the charge in the shipping area
which became smaller due to the fact that the actual area of the
project is less than what appeared in the topographic map.
For his defense, S contends that under his contract he is
not required to prepare a plan which shows the exact bounda-
ries of the project nor the exact measurement of said bounda-
ries; and that inasmuch as a topographic survey could be pre-
pared on a property even without indicating definitely its metes
and bounds, he proceeded with the topographic survey and
submitted the result of his work. He disclaims liability for losses
arising from the discrepancies referred to by a representative
as well as the architect of Philam whose attention he called be-
fore preparing the topographic map, as he was informed that
he should proceed even without a survey plan because time
was then of the essence and that whatever discrepancies may
arise as a result of the absence of such horizontal survey could
be remedied later.
Issue: Has S been at fault or remiss in the performance of
his duty to prepare the topographic map pursuant to his con-
tract with Philam?
Held: No. (1) Use of topographic map which is not linearly
plotted. — “When a topographic map which is not linearly
plotted and whose boundaries are consequently not accurate
is used in sketching the road lay-out and other parts of the sub-
division scheme, such procedure would be improper unless the
sketch is intended to be merely a preliminary lay-out, subject to
final adjustment after a fixed boundary survey has been made.
x x x.
In planning a scheme for a new housing project, there
should be not only a topographic survey of the entire project
area but also an accurate planimetric survey of the same indi-
cating the exact boundaries thereof.’’
(2) Obligation of contractor under article not absolute. — “Pe-
titioner would have us construe the obligation of the contrac-
tor to execute the work in such a manner that it had the quali-
ties agreed upon and was free from defects which destroyed or
 lOMoAR cPSD| 3774533

686 LEASE Arts. 1716-1717

lessened its value or fitness as well-nigh absolute. It would

impose the duty on the party thus bound to perform such work
to attain, in each and every case, a degree of perfectibility on
pain of being visited with a liability for damages. That is to
misread Art. 1715. It is to give it an interpretation at war with
the demands of reason. It might have been otherwise if the work
agreed upon to be performed consisted of machinery, which
must be constructed according to specification, otherwise it
would not serve the purpose contemplated. Such is not the case,
however. As Justice Holmes noted, there is no such principle
‘against using common sense in construing laws.’
Petitioner, however, appears to be of a different mind. Ig-
noring the vital circumstance that precluded respondent
Santamaria’s work from being as satisfactory as was hoped for,
for which it could not escape responsibility as it rejected his
offer to conduct both a topographic and a subdivision survey,
it would interpret this codal provision without any thought of
the canons of fairness. It would stretch its meaning in an un-
warranted manner. No legal norm should be susceptible to such
a reproach.’’ (Philippine American Life Ins. Co. vs. Santamaria, 31
SCRA 798 [1970].)

ART. 1716. An agreement waiving or limiting the

contractor’s liability for any defect in the work is void
if the contractor acted fraudulently. (n)

Agreement waiving or limiting contractor’s

liability for defects.
The agreement or “stipulation, if the contractor acted fraudu-
lently is contrary to public policy’’ (Report of the Code Commis-
sion, p. 147.) and is void. Article 1716 is similar to Article 1553
(Part I.) which declares void any stipulation exempting the ven-
dor from the obligation to answer for eviction if he acted in bad
faith.

ART. 1717. If the contractor bound himself to fur-

nish the material, he shall suffer the loss if the work
should be destroyed before its delivery, save when
there has been delay in receiving it. (1589)
 lOMoAR cPSD| 3774533

Art. 1718 WORK AND LABOR 687

Contract for a Piece of Work

Risk of loss where material furnished

by contractor.
Here, the contractor furnishes both his labor and material. He
shall suffer the loss if the work should be destroyed even if due
to a fortuitous event, before its delivery, unless the lessee-owner
is guilty of mora accipiendi, in which case the risk is shifted to him.
Thus, where the contractor of a building completed its construc-
tion and the owner wrongfully refused to accept delivery, the lat-
ter must bear the loss although there has been no actual delivery
by reason of the loss of the building by fire. (Tuason vs. Zamora
& Sons, 2 Phil. 305 [1903]; Atlantic Gulf Co. vs. Insular Govern-
ment, 10 Phil. 166 [1908].)
The contract is not extinguished, and, therefore. The contrac-
tor may be required to do the work again, unless there is a stipu-
lation to the contrary or a repetition of the work has become im-
possible.

ART. 1718. The contractor who has undertaken to

put only his work or skill, cannot claim any compen-
sation if the work should be destroyed before its de-
livery, unless there has been delay in receiving it, or
if the destruction was caused by the poor quality of
the material, provided this fact was communicated in
due time to the owner. If the material is lost through a
fortuitous event, the contract is extinguished.
(1590a)

Risk of loss where contractor

furnished only his work.
Under the present article, the contractor has undertakien to
put only his work or skill and the work is destroyed by a fortui-
tous event before its delivery. He cannot claim any compensation
for his labor or work unless:
(1) the lessee-owner is guilty of mora accipiendi; or
(2) the destruction was caused by the poor quality of the
material furnished by the owner, provided the contractor com-
municated this fact in due time to the owner.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 3774533

688 LEASE Art. 1719

If the material is lost through a fortuitous event, the contract

is extinguished. The contractor is not liable for damages or for the
value of the materials. If the loss or destruction is due to the con-
tractor’s fault, he may be obliged to do the work all over again.

ART. 1719. Acceptance of the work by the employer

relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the
work, unless:
(1) The defect is hidden and the employer is not,
by his special knowledge, expected to recognize the
same; or
(2) The employer expressly reserves his rights
against the contractor by reason of the defect. (n)

Effect of acceptance by the employer.

The acceptance of the work by the lessee-owner without ob-
jection or protest relieves the contractor of liability except in the
cases mentioned.
(1) The acceptance of the building without objecting with ref-
erence to the work or material furnished in the construction of
the house has the effect of acknowledging that the work and
material had been performed and furnished substantially as
agreed upon. This acceptance, of course, would not prevent the
defendant from subsequently raising the objection that there ex-
isted hidden defects in the construction of said house. (Choy vs.
Heredia, 12 Phil. 259 [1908]; Campbell vs. Behn Meyer Co., 3 Phil.
590 [1904]; Naval vs. Benavides, 8 Phil. 250 [1907]; Chan Suanco
vs. Alonso, 14 Phil. 517 [1909].)
(2) The acceptance of a building under protest is not a waiver
of any claim for damages for defects in its construction. (Ang Toa
vs. Alvarez, 11 Phil. 146 [1908]; Marker vs. Garcia, 5 Phil. 557
[1905]; Casimiro vs. Tamparong, 78 Phil. 804 [1947].)
(3) From the very nature of things, it is impossible to deter-
mine by the simple inspection of a concrete wall, floor, or plat-
form whether it has been made of reinforced concrete, for the rea-
son that this work is done by embedding iron or steel rods in the
 lOMoAR cPSD| 3774533

Art. 1720 WORK AND LABOR 689

Contract for a Piece of Work

concrete in such manner as to increase its strength. (Limjap vs. J.

Machuca & Co., 38 Phil. 451 [1918].)

ART. 1720. The price or compensation shall be paid

at the time and place of delivery of the work, unless
there is a stipulation to the contrary. If the work is to
be delivered partially, the price or compensation for
each part having been fixed, the sum shall be paid at
the time and place of delivery, in the absence of stipu-
lation. (n)

Time and place of payment of price

or compensation.
In the absence of stipulation to the contrary:
(1) The price or compensation shall be paid at the time and
place of delivery (see Art. 1582, Part I.);
(2) In case the work is to be delivered partially, and the price
or compensation for each part has been fixed, the same shall be
paid at the time and place of delivery of said part.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:
1. Architect/contractor who was guilty of delay in the submis-
sion of working drawings and specifications of a proposed condo-
minium building, was ordered by the Court of Appeals to return the
amount paid to him for the building plans which he submitted on time
as per contract, and attorney’s fees.
Facts: In a letter-agreement between petitioner J. Gonzales,
architect and contractor, and respondent Endel Corp. for the
construction of a condominium building on the latter’s lot,
Gonzales agreed to undertake the preparation of plans of said
building as well as the supervision of its construction.
Endel sued for rescission of its contract which Gonzales,
alleging that the latter’s neglect and delay in completing the
drawings and specifications within three (3) months, or by April
30, 1972, conformably with the practice of architects, to enable
Endel to complete plans for financing and make public an-
nouncements of said project, resulted in great damage and
prejudicial to it.