ENBANC

[G.R.No.L27454.April30,1970.]

ROSENDOO.CHAVES,PlainAppellant,v.FRUCTUOSOGONZALES,DefendantAppellee.

Chaves,Elio,Chaves&Associates,forPlainAppellant.

SulpicioE.Platon,forDefendantAppellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR NONPERFORMANCE; FIXING OF PERIOD

BEFORE FILING OF COMPLAINT FOR NONPERFORMANCE, ACADEMIC. Where the me for
compliancehadexpiredandtherewasbreachofcontractbynonperformance,itwasacademicfor
theplaintohaverstpeonedthecourttoxaperiodfortheperformanceofthecontract
beforelinghiscomplaint.

2.ID.;ID.;ID.;DEFENDANTCANNOTINVOKEARTICLE1197OFTHECIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES.
Where the defendant virtually admied nonperformance of the contract by returning the
typewriterthathewasobligedtorepairinanonworkingcondion,withessenalpartsmissing,
Arcle1197oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinescannotbeinvoked.Thexingofaperiodwould
thusbeamereformalityandwouldservenopurposethantodelay.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DAMAGES RECOVERABLE; CASE AT BAR. Where the defendantappellee
contravened the tenor of his obligaon because he not only did not repair the typewriter but
returnedit"inshambles,heisliableforthecostofthelabororserviceexpendedintherepairof
thetypewriter,whichisintheamountofP58.75,becausetheobligaonorcontractwastorepair
it.Inaddion,heislikewiseliableunderArt.1170oftheCode,forthecostofthemissingparts,in
the amount of P31.10, for in his obligaon to repair the typewriter he was bound, but failed or
neglected,toreturnitinthesamecondionitwaswhenhereceivedit.

4.ID.;ID.;ID.;CLAIMSFORDAMAGESORATTORNEYSFEESNOTRECOVERABLE;NOTALLEGEDOR
PROVED IN INSTANT CASE. Claims for damages and aorneys fees must be pleaded, and the
existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved. As no ndings of fact were made on the
claims for damages and aorneys fees, there is no factual basis upon which to make an award
therefor.

5.REMEDIALLAW;APPEALS;APPEALFROMCOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCETOSUPREMECOURT;ONLY
QUESTIONSOFLAWREVIEWABLE.Wheretheappellantdirectlyappealsfromthedecisionofthe
trialcourttotheSupremeCourtonquesonsoflaw,heisboundbythejudgmentofthecourta
quoonitsndingsoffact.
 DECISION

REYES,J.B.L.,J.:

Thisisadirectappealbythepartywhoprevailedinasuitforbreachoforalcontractandrecovery
ofdamagesbutwasunsasedwiththedecisionrenderedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,
initsCivilCaseNo.65138,becauseitawardedhimonlyP31.10outofhistotalclaimofP69000for
actual,temperateandmoraldamagesandaorneysfees.

Theappealedjudgment,whichisbrief,ishereunderquotedinfull: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the early part of July, 1963, the plain delivered to the defendant, who is a typewriter
repairer,aportabletypewriterforrounecleaningandservicing.Thedefendantwasnotableto
nish the job aer some me despite repeated reminders made by the plain. The defendant
merelygaveassurances,butfailedtocomplywiththesame.InOctober,1963,thedefendantasked
fromtheplainthesumofP6.00forthepurchaseofspareparts,whichamounttheplaingave
tothedefendant.OnOctober26,1963,aergengexasperatedwiththedelayoftherepairof
the typewriter, the plain went to the house of the defendant and asked for the return of the
typewriter.Thedefendantdeliveredthetypewriterinawrappedpackage.Onreachinghome,the
plainexaminedthetypewriterreturnedtohimbythedefendantandfoundoutthatthesame
wasinshambles,withtheinteriorcoverandsomepartsandscrewsmissing.OnOctober29,1963.
theplainsentaleertothedefendantformallydemandingthereturnofthemissingparts,the
interiorcoverandthesumofP6.00(ExhibitD).Thefollowingday,thedefendantreturnedtothe
plainsomeofthemissingparts,theinteriorcoverandtheP6.00.

"OnAugust29,1964,theplainhadhistypewriterrepairedbyFreixasBusinessMachines,and
therepairjobcosthimatotalofP89.85,includinglaborandmaterials(ExhibitC).

"On August 23, 1965, the plain commenced this acon before the City Court of Manila,
demanding from the defendant the payment of P90.00 as actual and compensatory damages,
P100.00fortemperatedamages,P500.00formoraldamages,andP500.00asaorneysfees.

"Inhisansweraswellasinhistesmonygivenbeforethiscourt,thedefendantmadenodenialsof
thefactsnarratedabove,excepttheclaimoftheplainthatthetypewriterwasdeliveredtothe
defendant through a certain Julio Bocalin, which the defendant denied allegedly because the
typewriterwasdeliveredtohimpersonallybytheplain.

"The repair done on the typewriter by Freixas Business Machines with the total cost of P89.85
should not, however, be fully chargeable against the defendant. The repair invoice, Exhibit C,
showsthatthemissingpartshadatotalvalueofonlyP31.10.
"WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedorderingthedefendanttopaytheplainthesumof
P31.10,andthecostsofsuit.

"SOORDERED." cralawvirtua1awlibrary

The error of the court a quo, according to the plainappellant, Rosendo O. Chaves, is that it
awardedonlythevalueofthemissingpartsofthetypewriter,insteadofthewholecostoflabor
andmaterialsthatwentintotherepairofthemachine,asprovidedforinArcle1167oftheCivil
Code,readingasfollows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 contravenon of the tenor of the obligaon.
Furthermoreitmaybedecreedthatwhathasbeenpoorlydoneheundone." cralawvirtua1awlibrary

Ontheotherhand,theposionofthedefendantappellee,FructuosoGonzales,isthatheisnot
liableatall,notevenforthesumofP31.10,becausehiscontractwithplainappellantdidnot
containaperiod,sothatplainappellantshouldhaverstledapeonforthecourttoxthe
period,underArcle1197oftheCivilCode,withinwhichthedefendantappelleewastocomply
withthecontractbeforesaiddefendantappelleecouldbeheldliableforbreachofcontract.

BecausetheplainappealeddirectlytotheSupremeCourtandtheappelleedidnotinterpose
anyappeal,thefacts,asfoundbythetrialcourt,arenowconclusiveandnonreviewable.1

The appealed judgment states that the "plain delivered to the defendant . . . a portable
typewriterforrounecleaningandservicing";thatthedefendantwasnotabletonishthejob
aersomemedespiterepeatedremindersmadebytheplain";thatthe"defendantmerely
gaveassurances,butfailedtocomplywiththesame";andthat"aergengexasperatedwiththe
delayoftherepairofthetypewriter",theplainwenttothehouseofthedefendantandasked
for its return, which was done. The inferences derivable from these ndings of fact are that the
appellantandtheappelleehadaperfectedcontractforcleaningandservicingatypewriter;that
theyintendedthatthedefendantwastonishitatsomefuturemealthoughsuchmewasnot
specied; and that such me had passed without the work having been accomplished, far the
defendantreturnedthetypewritercannibalizedandunrepaired,whichinitselfisabreachofhis
obligaon, without demanding that he should be given more me to nish the job, or
compensaon for the work he had already done. The me for compliance having evidently
expired,andtherebeingabreachofcontractbynonperformance,itwasacademicfortheplain
tohaverstpeonedthecourttoxaperiodfortheperformanceofthecontractbeforeling
hiscomplaintinthiscase.DefendantcannotinvokeArcle1197oftheCivilCodeforhevirtually
admied nonperformance by returning the typewriter that he was obliged to repair in a non
working condion, with essenal parts missing. The xing 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.18l).

Itisclearthatthedefendantappelleecontravenedthetenorofhisobligaonbecausehenotonly
didnotrepairthetypewriterbutreturnedit"inshambles",accordingtotheappealeddecision.For
such contravenon, as appellant contends, he is liable under Arcle 1167 of the Civil Code. jam
quot,forthecostofexecungtheobligaoninapropermanner.Thecostoftheexecuonofthe
obligaon in this case should be the cost of the labor or service expended in the repair of the
typewriter,whichisintheamountofP58.75.becausetheobligaonorcontractwastorepairit.

Inaddion,thedefendantappelleeislikewiseliable,underArcle1170oftheCode,forthecost
ofthemissingparts,intheamountofP31.10,forinhisobligaontorepairthetypewriterhewas
bound,butfailedorneglected,toreturnitinthesamecondionitwaswhenhereceivedit.

Appellantsclaimsformoralandtemperatedamagesandaorneysfeeswere,however,correctly
rejectedbythetrialcourt,forthesewerenotallegedinhiscomplaint(RecordonAppeal,pages1
5).Claimsfordamagesandaorneysfeesmustbepleaded,andtheexistenceoftheactualbasis
thereofmustbeproved.2Theappealedjudgmentthusmadenondingsontheseclaims,noron
thefraudormalicechargedtotheappellee.Asnondingsoffactweremadeontheclaimsfor
damages and aorneys fees, there is no factual basis upon which to make an award therefor.
Appellantisboundbysuchjudgmentofthecourt,aquo,byreasonofhishavingresorteddirectly
totheSupremeCourtonquesonsoflaw.

INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOINGREASONS,theappealedjudgmentisherebymodied,byorderingthe
defendantappellee to pay, as he is hereby ordered to pay, the plainappellant the sum of
P89.85,withinterestatthelegalratefromthelingofthecomplaint.Costsinallinstancesagainst
appelleeFructuosoGonzales.

Concepcion,C.J.,Dizon,Makalintal,Zaldivar,Castro,Fernando,TeehankeeandVillamor,JJ.,concur.

Barredo,J.,didnottakepart.