Chaves vs. Gonzales (32 SCRA 547)

Chaves vs. Gonzales (32 SCRA 547)

GR No. 27454, April 30, 1970

Reyes, JBL, J.:

Facts:

Chaves delivered his portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing to Gonzales. Gonzales was not able to finish the job despite repeated reminders from Chaves. Gonzales asked for P6 for the purchase of spare parts, but he was still not able to repair the typewriter. Exasperated with Gonzales’ delay, Chaves asked for the return of the typewriter, whose parts were not complete anymore upon being returned to Chaves. Chaves sues for breach, but Gonzales argues that he is not liable for costs and damages because their contract did not contain a period within which to perform his obligation. He avers that Chaves should have first filed a petition for the court to fix the period before he could be held liable for breach of contract.

Issue:

Whether a period must be set by the court first before one could sue for a breach

Held:

No, one could sue for a breach even without asking the court to set a period within which to perform the obligation.

The inferences derivable from these findings of fact are that Chaves and Gonzales had a perfected contract for cleaning and servicing a typewriter; that they intended that Gonzales 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, for Gonzales 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 Chaves to have first petitioned the court to fix a period for the performance of the contract before filing his complaint in this case. Gonzales cannot invoke Article 1197 of the Civil Code for he virtually admitted non-performance by returning the typewriter that he was obliged to repair in a nonworking condition, with essential parts missing. The fixing of a period would thus be a mere formality and would serve no purpose than to delay (cf. Tiglao, et al. v. Manila Railroad Co., 98 Phil. 181).

It is clear that the Gonzales 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 Chaves 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.