CSample - Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter Repair, Obligation To Repair, Nonperformance, Fixing The Period) - Synthesis Legis

2/3/22, 10:33 PM 1970 – Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No.
, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair, Nonperformance, Fixing the period) – synthe…



SYNTHESIS LEGIS
resources for law students and professionals
AU G U S T 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 / C A S E I N D E X
1970 – Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454

(Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair,
Nonperformance, Fixing the period)
1. REFERENCE
1.1. DOCKET NUMBER
GR No. L-27454
https://synthesislegis.com/index.php/2019/08/16/1970-chaves-v-gonzales-gr-no-l-27454-typewriter-repair-obligation-to-repair-nonperformance-fixing-t… 1/15
2/3/22, 10:33 PM 1970 – Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair, Nonperformance, Fixing the period) – synthe…
1.2. CITATION
Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454, 32 SCRA 547 (April 30, 1970)
1.3. FULL-TEXT SOURCE ONLINE
ChanRobles
Lawyerly
2. MNEMONIC
2.1. LAW SCHOOL SUBJECT
OBLICON
2.2. KEYWORDS
Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair, Nonperformance, Fixing the period not applicable
2.3. FACT MNEMONIC
Typewriter repair case
2.4. DOCTRINE MNEMONIC
Period cannot be fixed by court if facts show that contract was breached by nonperformance and time for
compliance has expired.
Claims for damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof
must be proved.
2.5. VERBATIM DOCTRINE
Period cannot be fixed by court if facts show that contract was breached by nonperformance and time for
compliance has expired.
The time for compliance having evidently expired, and there being a breach of contract by
nonperformance, 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.
Claims for damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof
must be proved.
As-is
2.6. SHORTHAND DIGEST
In a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision rendered by CFI Manila, which involved the
defendant-appellee’s nonperformance of his obligation to repair a portable typewriter, the Supreme Court
ruled that the defendant must compensate the plaintiff the costs incurred as a result of fixing defendant’s
damage to the typewriter. Defendant cannot invoke the absence of a period as a defense under Article 1197
as facts revealed his nonperformance, resulting in the expiration of the time of compliance and breach of
contract. Hence, the Court ruled the defendant liable for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper
manner as well as the cost for the missing parts.
3. PROFILE
3.1. DATE OF PROMULGATION
April 30, 1970
3.2. DECIDING COURT
Supreme Court of the Philippines
3.3. DIVISION
En Banc
3.4. PONENTE
Reyes, JBL
3.5. CONCURRENCE AND ATTENDANCE
3.5.1. Concurring
Concepcion, C.J.
Dizon
Makalintal
Zaldivar
Castro
Fernando
Teehankee
Villamor
3.5.2. Dissenting
None
3.5.3. Absent/Others
Barredo, J (did not take part)
3.6. SEPARATE OPINIONS
N/A
3.7. PARTIES
3.7.1. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Rosendo Chaves
3.7.2. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
Fructuoso Gonzales
3.8. COUNSEL
3.7.1. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Chaves, Elio, Chaves, & Associates
3.7.2. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
Sulpicio E. Platon
3.9. NATURE OF ACTION
Direct appeal from a decision rendered by CFI Manila
3.10. LAWS AND PROVISIONS CITED
New Civil Code

Article 1167
Article 1170
Article 1197
3.11. CASES CITED
Perez v. Araneta, GR L-18414, 24 SCRA 43 (July 15 1968)

Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga, GR L-24116-17, 24 SCRA 708 (August 22, 1968)
Malonzo v. Galang, GR L-13851, July 27, 1960
Daraga v. Belizear, GR L-22399, 19 SCRA 214 (March 31, 1967)
Tiglao et al. V. Manila Railroad Co., 98 Phil. 181
4. CONTENTS
4.1. FACTS
On early July 1963, plaintiff asked defendant, a typewriter repairer, a portable typewriter for routine
cleaning and servicing.
Defendant was not able to finish the job despite repeated reminders by the plaintiff.
On October 1963, defendant asked plaintiff for P6.00 for purchasing spare parts. Defendant complied.
On October 26, 1963, plaintiff demanded the return of the typewriter. Defendant returned it wrapped. On
returning home, plaintiff discovered the typewriter to be in disarray with missing parts.
On October 29, 1963, plaintiff sent a demand letter to defendant for the return of the missing parts, the
interior cover, and the sum of P 6.00. The defendant only returned some of the missing parts, the interior
cover, and the P 6.00.
On August 29, 1964, plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business machines. It cost him a total
of P89.85.
4.2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CFI Manila
Plaintiff commenced his action to demand the following from defendant:
P 90.00 as actual and compensatory damages
P 100.0 for temperate damages
P 500.00 for moral damages
P 500.00 as attorney’s fees
The court ruled that only the missing parts should be chargeable to the defendant, at a total value of P
31.10.
Supreme Court
Plaintiff-appellant alleged that he should be awarded the whole cost of labor and materials that went
into the repair of the machine, as provided for in Article 1167 of the Civil Code.
Defendant-appellee alleged that he is liable for nothing because his contract with plaintiff-appellant
did not contain a period. Plaintiff-appellant should have filed a petition for the court to fix the period
under Article 1197 of the Civil Code.
Because of plaintiff’s direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the facts, as found by the trial court, are
deemed conclusive and non-reviewable.
4.3. ISSUES
Whether defendant-appellee can petition the court to fix the period under Article 1197 of the Civil Code.
Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner under
Article 1167 of the Civil Code?
Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of the missing parts under Article 1170 of the Civil
Code?
Whether the court was correct in rejecting appellant’s claims for moral and temperate damages and
attorney’s fees?
4.4. HELD
Whether defendant-appellee can petition the court to fix the period under Article 1197 of the Civil Code.
No.
Defendant cannot invoke Article 1197 of the Civil Code for he virtually admitted nonperformance
by returning the typewriter that he was obliged to repair in a non-working 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).
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
nonperformance, 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.
Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner
under Article 1167 of the Civil Code?
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. jam quot, 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.
Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of the missing parts under Article 1170 of the Civil
Code?
Yes.
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.
Whether the court was correct in rejecting appellant’s claims for moral and temperate damages and
attorney’s fees?
Yes.
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. Claims for
damages and attorney’s fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof must
be proved. The appealed judgment thus made no findings on these claims, nor on the fraud or
malice charged to the appellee. As no findings of fact were made on the claims for damages and
attorney’s fees, there is no factual basis upon which to make an award therefor. Appellant is
bound by such judgment of the court, a quo, by reason of his having resorted directly to the
Supreme Court on questions of law.
4.5. DISPOSITION
Judgment appealed from modified. Defendant-appellee to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85, with
interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs in all instances against appellee Fructuoso
Gonzales.
4.6. SEPARATE OPINIONS
None.
Fixing the period Nonperformance Obligation to repair Typewriter repair
Source with Alibaba.com

Alibaba.com
SHARE THIS

← PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST →
1922 – Smith Bell & Co, Ltd v. Matti, GR No. 16570 2019, April 26 – Philippine Innovation Act
(Conditional Obligation, Contract of Purchase and (Republic Act No. 11293)
Delivery of Machinery)
SynthesisLegis
Search
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. REFERENCE
1.1. Docket Number
1.2. Citation
1.3. Full-Text Source Online
2. MNEMONIC
2.1. Law School Subject
2.2. Keywords
2.3. Fact Mnemonic
2.4. Doctrine Mnemonic

2.5. Verbatim Doctrine
2.6. Shorthand Digest
3. PROFILE
3.1. Date of Promulgation
3.2. Deciding Court
3.3. Division
3.4. Ponente
3.5. Concurrence and Attendance
3.6. Separate Opinions
3.7. Parties
3.8. Counsel
3.9. Nature of Action
3.10. Laws and Provisions Cited

3.11. Cases Cited
4. CONTENTS
4.1. Facts
4.2. Procedural History
4.3. Issues
4.4. Held
4.5. Disposition
4.6. Separate Opinion
SPONSORED BY

PROJECTS

Case Index
Full Text
https://synthesislegis.com/index.php/2019/08/16/1970-chaves-v-gonzales-gr-no-l-27454-typewriter-repair-obligation-to-repair-nonperformance-fixing… 10/15
TOP POSTS & PAGES

1931 - Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, GR No. 34840 (automotive collision, negligence, father

liable for son's negligent acts)
1922 - Smith Bell & Co, Ltd v. Matti, GR No. 16570 (Conditional Obligation, Contract of
Purchase and Delivery of Machinery)
June 25, 2019 - Amended Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, Law Student Practice (A.M.
No. 19-03-24-SC)
1988 - People's Bank and Trust Company v. Syvel's Incorporated, GR No. L-29280
(Chattel mortgage, novation is never presumed)
1970 - Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair,

Nonperformance, Fixing the period)
1984 - Ronquillo v. CA, GR No. L-55138 (Compromise Agreement, Collection of Sum,

individually and jointly)
1970 - JM Tuason & Co, Inc. v. Ligaya Javier, GR No. L-28569 (Contract to sell,
recovery)
2014 - Metrobank v. Rosales, GR No. 183204 (Sources of Obligation - New Civil Code,
Damages, Bad Faith)
1967 - Araneta v. The Philippine Sugar Estates, GR No. L-22558 (Obligation to finish
street, reasonable time, fixing a period, two-step process)
1941 - Magdalena Estate, Inc. v. Myrick, GR No. L-47774 (Letter cancelling contract of
sale, intention, clear positive and unambiguous writing)
CHECK OUT OUR ARCHIVES

December 2021 (1)
April 2021 (33)
March 2021 (13)
February 2021 (9)
January 2021 (3)
October 2020 (4)
September 2020 (4)
August 2020 (5)
July 2020 (3)
May 2020 (4)
April 2020 (1)
February 2020 (2)
January 2020 (2)
December 2019 (2)
November 2019 (1)
August 2019 (4)
July 2019 (3)
April 2019 (2)
February 2019 (9)
March 2018 (1)
TOPICS

Agricultural land (1)

Ambiguity (2)
Bonus (1)
breach of contract (2)
Collection of Sum (3)
Collection Suit (2)
Compromise Agreement (3)

Conjugal Partnership of Gains (1)
Contract of Sale (5)
Contracts (2)
Contract to sell (2)
deed of sale (2)

Eminent Domain (2)
evidence (2)
Fixing a Period (2)
Fixing the period (2)
Force Majeure (2)
good faith (3)

Inflation (2)
In Pari Delicto (4)
Insurance Policy (2)
Kabit System (2)
Legal Compensation (2)
Liability (2)
Mortgage Loan (4)
Natural Obligations (1)
negligence (5)
No relief from unlawful contracts (2)
Novation (3)
ObliCon (1)
Partial Performance (2)
Prescription (10)
Promissory Note (3)
Proof of Filiation (1)
public policy (3)

Questions of Fact (2)
recovery (3)
remedial law (12)
Rescission (3)
Solidary Liability (3)
Solutio Indebiti (3)

Sources of Obligation (1)
Statute of Frauds (3)
void contract (3)
Void Contracts (3)
2022 © synthesis legis - Theme by SiteOrigin

CSample - Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter Repair, Obligation To Repair, Nonperformance, Fixing The Period) - Synthesis Legis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSample - Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter Repair, Obligation To Repair, Nonperformance, Fixing The Period) - Synthesis Legis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/3/22, 10:33 PM 1970 – Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No.

1970 – Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454

1.1. DOCKET NUMBER

Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454, 32 SCRA 547 (April 30, 1970)

1.3. FULL-TEXT SOURCE ONLINE

2.1. LAW SCHOOL SUBJECT

2.3. FACT MNEMONIC

Typewriter repair case

2.4. DOCTRINE MNEMONIC

2.5. VERBATIM DOCTRINE

2.6. SHORTHAND DIGEST

3.1. DATE OF PROMULGATION

April 30, 1970

3.2. DECIDING COURT

Supreme Court of the Philippines

3.5. CONCURRENCE AND ATTENDANCE

Barredo, J (did not take part)

3.6. SEPARATE OPINIONS

Chaves, Elio, Chaves, & Associates

3.9. NATURE OF ACTION

Direct appeal from a decision rendered by CFI Manila

3.10. LAWS AND PROVISIONS CITED

New Civil Code

3.11. CASES CITED

Perez v. Araneta, GR L-18414, 24 SCRA 43 (July 15 1968)

4.2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4.6. SEPARATE OPINIONS

Fixing the period Nonperformance Obligation to repair Typewriter repair

Source with Alibaba.com

← PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST →

1.3. Full-Text Source Online

2.3. Fact Mnemonic

2.4. Doctrine Mnemonic

2.6. Shorthand Digest

3.2. Deciding Court

3.5. Concurrence and Attendance

3.6. Separate Opinions

3.9. Nature of Action

3.10. Laws and Provisions Cited

4.2. Procedural History

4.6. Separate Opinion

TOP POSTS & PAGES

1931 - Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, GR No. 34840 (automotive collision, negligence, father

1970 - Chaves v. Gonzales, GR No. L-27454 (Typewriter repair, Obligation to repair,

1984 - Ronquillo v. CA, GR No. L-55138 (Compromise Agreement, Collection of Sum,

CHECK OUT OUR ARCHIVES

Agricultural land (1)

Compromise Agreement (3)

deed of sale (2)

good faith (3)

public policy (3)

Solutio Indebiti (3)

2022 © synthesis legis - Theme by SiteOrigin

You might also like