CHAVEZ vs GONZALES NATURE: direct appeal by prevailing party in a suit for breach of oral contract and recovery of damages

but was unsatisfied with the rendered decision of the CFI Facts July 1963- plaintiff Chavez asked defendant Gonzales to fix his typewriter. Gonzales was unable to finish the job so Chavez asked for it repeatedly but Gonzales did not comply. Oct 1963- Gonzales asked Chavez for Php6 for materials to be used in fixing the typewriter. A few days later, Chavez went to Gonzales house to claim the typewriter because he was tired of waiting. After claiming it and returning home, he found out that his typewriter was missing some internal parts, the interior cover and some screws. So, he wrote a letter demanding for the return of the Php6 and the missing parts, which the defendant did so willingly. Aug 1964- Chavez had Freixas Business fix his typewriter costing him Php89.85. Aug 1965- Chavez sued Gonzales for the costs he incurred in having his typewriter fixed and demanded compensation. The CFI ruled Gonzales should not be held chargeable for the full amount because the invoice return shows that the missing parts only cost Php31.10. so he should only pay the Php31.10 Chavez states Gonzales should be liable not only for the thirty-one pesos but for the full costs he incurred including the labor and the materials in fixing it. He invokes it under ART 1167 if a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost Gonzales says he is not liable at all because in their contract, there was no fixed period. So, he says that under Art 1197, Chavez should have first filed for the court to fix the period.

Issue Can Gonzales be held chargeable for the full costs Chavez incurred in having his typewriter fixed? Held YES. Though Gonzales returned the typewriter to Chavez, he did so without compliance to their contract to fix it. this in itself is considered a breach of contract on his obligation to fix it.

As to Gonzales contention that Chavez should have filed for a fixed period first because there was no period mentioned in their contract, it is untenable. This is because he already practically admitted non-performance on his part of the contract when he returned the typewriter, which was even in a worse state when he did. The fixing of period here as to the contract would become a mere formality and would have no more purpose than to delay the case proceedings. The court thus holds him liable under 1167 for failing to perform his obligation on their contract and as well as under 1170 for failing to return the typewriter in the same condition as it was when brought to him.