OBLICON Doctrine: Nature and Effect of Obligations; Cost of Obligation; Obligation

with Period
G.R. No. 27454
Chaves v Gonzales Date: April 30, 1970
Ponente: REYES, J.B.L., J.
Rosendo O. Chaves, plaintiff-appellant Fructuoso Gonzales, defendant-appellee

Nature of the case:

(a) Direct appeal from a decision of the CFI of Manila
FACTS
On July 1963, Rosendo Chaves delivered to Fructuoso Gonzales, a typewriter repairer a portable
typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing. Gonzales, despite being repeatedly reminded by Chaves,
merely gave assurances to return the typewriter but failed to comply with the same. On October 1963,
Gonzales asked Chaves the sum of ₱6.00 purchase of the spare parts. Chaves obliged and paid the
amount. Due to exasperation, Chaves went to the house of Gonzales and asked for the return of the
typewriter; Gonzales delivered the typewriter in a wrapped package. It turned out that the typewriter
was ruined: interior cover, some parts and screws were missing. Chaves then sent a letter to Gonzales,
formally demanding the return of the missing parts and the sum of ₱6.00. Gonzales returned some of
the missing parts and the ₱6.00.

Chaves had the typewriter repaired by Frexias Business Machines. The repair job cost a total of ₱89.85.
He filed an action of breach of oral contract and recovery of damages before the City Court of Manila.
He prayed for the award of the following:
 ₱90.00 for actual and compensatory damages
 ₱100.00 for temperate damages
 ₱500.00 for moral damages
 ₱500.00 for attorney’s fees

The CFI of Manila awarded Chaves only ₱31.10 out of his total claim of ₱690.00 for actual, temperate
and moral damages and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE/S
WON the CFI of Manila erred in awarding only the value of the missing parts of the
typewriter, instead of the whole cost of labor and material that went into the repair
of the machine (Art. 1167 of the Civil Code)
RATIO
Gonzales maintain that he was not liable at all because his contract with Chaves did not contain a
period. He claimed that Chaves should have first filed a petition for the court to fix the period (Art.
1197). However, the SC finds that Chaves and Gonzales had a perfected contract for cleaning and
servicing a typewriter The intention was to finish it at some future time even though such time was not
specified. Gonzales returned the typewriter “cannibalized and unrepaired”, such to be considered as a
breach of his obligation.
The SC does not also see the need for Chaves to petition the court to fix the period for the performance
of the contract before filing this complaint. Art. 1197’s provision in fixing of a period would thus be a
mere formality and would serve no purpose than to delay. It finds that Gonzales is liable under Art.
1167 of the Civil Code.
The cost of obligation includes the cost of the labor or service expended in the repair of the typewriter,
which is in the amount of ₱58.75, since the obligation or contract was to repair it. He is also liable under
Art. 1170 of the Civil Code (cost of the missing parts in the amount of ₱31.10). His failed or neglected
his obligation to repair the typewriter he was bound to return it in the same condition it was when he
received it.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed judgment is hereby modified, by ordering the
defendant-appellee to pay, as he 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. Costs in all instances against appellee
Fructuoso Gonzales.
Notes
Art. 1167
“If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost. This same rule
shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the obligation. Furthermore it may be
decreed that what has been poorly done he undone.”

Art. 1197
“If the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be inferred
that a period was intended, the courts may fix the duration thereof. The courts shall also fix the
duration of the period when it depends upon the will of the debtor. In every case, the courts shall
determine such period as may under the circumstances have been probably contemplated by the
parties. Once fixed by the courts, the period cannot be changed by them. (1128a)”

Art. 1170
“Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. (1101)”
1-C 2015-07 (CASTILLO)