Barzaga vs Alviar Facts: Ignacio Barzaga, petitioner, had an ailing wife who died in December 19, 1990 and

before she died her last wish was to be buried before Christmas arrives so that the family will not mourn for her on that special day. On 21 December 1990, Ignacio went to the hardware store of respondent Angelito Alviar to inquire about the availability of certain materials to be used in the construction of a niche for his wife. He also asked if the materials could be delivered at once. Marina Boncales, Alviar's storekeeper, replied that she had yet to verify if the store had pending deliveries that afternoon because if there were then all subsequent purchases would have to be delivered the following day. The following day he bought the materials and wanted it to be delivered to the cemetery directly which is one kilometer away. He then went to the cemetery and waited for the materials to arrive along with his laborers. Eventually it did not arrive in time and he was coming back and forth to the store to remind about the delivery but still at the end of the day no delivery was made. He was dismayed because he knows it will be too late to finish the niche on time so he opted to buy materials to other hardware. He then was able to buy new materials but the time wasnt enough and it took him on December 26 to bury his wife rather than supposed to be a day before Christmas. Due to his remorse and sadness he then filed suit against Alviar for compensation due to the legal delay of their fulfillment in their contract. Alviar incurred delay because he was not able to deliver the materials on time and that resulted a suit filed against him in the RTC. The trial court ruled in favor of Barzaga for their was legal delay. Alviar then appealed to the Court of Appeals and then reversed the RTC decision stating that there was no delay because Ignacio failed to prove that there was an agreed time for delivery and such agreement must be proven in court. Ignacio then filed a petition to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of delay that will entitle petitioner for damages, although it was not specified in the invoice the exact time of delivery? Held: The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed by the Supreme Court entitling Barzaga for damages. Respondent, Angelito Alviar, was negligent and incurred in delay in the performance of his contractual obligation. This sufficiently entitles petitioner Ignacio Barzaga to be indemnified for the damage he suffered as a consequence of delay or a contractual breach. According to Article 1170 of the New Civil Code the law expressly provides that those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. The Supreme Court also proved that stating a specific delivery time in the sales invoice was not the custom of their store and customers simply makes agreements verbally when it comes to the delivery. This case is clearly a non-performance of reciprocal obligation based on article 1169. In their contract of purchase and sale, petitioner had already complied fully with what was required of him as purchaser. It was incumbent upon respondent to immediately fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods otherwise delay would attach.