Barzaga v CA Digest is a case where:
1) The petitioner's wife expressed a wish to be buried before Christmas to spare her family long vigils, but she passed away near Christmas.
2) The petitioner contracted with private respondents to construct a niche by an agreed deadline but respondents failed to deliver on time despite reminders.
3) The niche was completed 2.5 days late, and the court ruled the respondents were negligent and delayed in their contractual obligations, so the petitioner was entitled to compensation for damages from the delay.
Barzaga v CA Digest is a case where:
1) The petitioner's wife expressed a wish to be buried before Christmas to spare her family long vigils, but she passed away near Christmas.
2) The petitioner contracted with private respondents to construct a niche by an agreed deadline but respondents failed to deliver on time despite reminders.
3) The niche was completed 2.5 days late, and the court ruled the respondents were negligent and delayed in their contractual obligations, so the petitioner was entitled to compensation for damages from the delay.
Barzaga v CA Digest is a case where:
1) The petitioner's wife expressed a wish to be buried before Christmas to spare her family long vigils, but she passed away near Christmas.
2) The petitioner contracted with private respondents to construct a niche by an agreed deadline but respondents failed to deliver on time despite reminders.
3) The niche was completed 2.5 days late, and the court ruled the respondents were negligent and delayed in their contractual obligations, so the petitioner was entitled to compensation for damages from the delay.
Facts: The petitioners wife was suffering from a debilitating ailment and with forewarning of her impending death, she expressed her wish to be laid to rest before Christmas day to spare her family of the long vigils as it was almost Christmas. After his wife passed away, petitioner bought materials from herein private respondents for the construction of her niche. Private respondents however failed to deliver on agreed time and date despite repeated follow-ups. The niche was completed in the afternoon of the 27th of December, and Barzaga's wife was finally laid to rest. However, it was two-and-a-half (2- 1/2) days behind schedule. Issue: Was there delay in the performance of the private respondent's obligation?
Ruling: Yes. Since the respondent was negligent and incurred delay in the performance of his contractual obligations, the petitioner is entitled to be indemnified for the damage he suffered as a consequence of the delay or contractual breach. There was a specific time agreed upon for the delivery of the materials to the cemetery.
This is clearly a case of non-performance of a reciprocal obligation, as in the contract of purchase and sale, the petitioner had already done his part, which is the payment of the price. It was incumbent upon respondent 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 so much.