[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
3K views1 page

20 Chavez vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547 (FCD)

The plaintiff brought his typewriter to the defendant for repair. When he recovered it months later, parts were missing. The plaintiff had to pay to have it fully repaired. The lower courts only awarded the value of the missing parts, but the plaintiff appealed, seeking the full repair costs. The Supreme Court ruled the defendant was liable under the Civil Code for both the cost of properly executing the repair obligation and replacing the missing parts, modifying the judgment to award the plaintiff the full repair costs of P89.85 plus interest.

Uploaded by

Rex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views1 page

20 Chavez vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547 (FCD)

The plaintiff brought his typewriter to the defendant for repair. When he recovered it months later, parts were missing. The plaintiff had to pay to have it fully repaired. The lower courts only awarded the value of the missing parts, but the plaintiff appealed, seeking the full repair costs. The Supreme Court ruled the defendant was liable under the Civil Code for both the cost of properly executing the repair obligation and replacing the missing parts, modifying the judgment to award the plaintiff the full repair costs of P89.85 plus interest.

Uploaded by

Rex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Chavez vs.

Gonzales

Facts: July 1963, Rosendo Chavez, plaintiff, brought his typewriter to Fructuoso Gonzales, defendant, a
typewriter repairman for the cleaning and servicing of the said typewriter. Three months later, the plaintiff paid
P6.00 to the defendant for the purchase of spare parts. Because of the delay of the repair the plaintiff decided
to recover the typewriter from the defendant which was wrapped like a package. When he opened and
examined it, the interior cover and some parts and screws were missing. October 29, 1963 the plaintiff sent a
letter to the defendant for the return of the missing parts, the interior cover and the sum of P6.00. The
following day, the defendant returned to the plaintiff only some of the missing parts, the interior cover and the
P6.00.

August 29, 1964, the plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business Machines, that cost him a total
of P89.85. A year later, the plaintiff filed an action before the City Court of Manila, demanding from the
defendant the payment for total of P1,190.00 for damages including attorney’s fees. The defendant made no
denials.

The repair invoice shows that the missing parts had a total value of P31.10 only. The lower courts ruled that
the defendant has to pay the plaintiff the sum of P31.10, and the costs of suit.

Chaves appealed because it only awarded the value of the missing parts of the typewriter, instead of the whole
cost of labor and materials that went into the repair of the machine. 

The appealed judgment is modified. Gonzales was ordered to pay the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85,
with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint.

Issue:

1. Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner
under Article 1167 of the Civil Code?

2. Whether the defendant-appellee is liable for the cost of the missing parts under Article 1170 of the
Civil Code?

HELD:
1. 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, the Court ruled that he is liable under Article 1167 of the
Civil Code. 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.

2. 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.

You might also like