IGNACIO BARZAGA VS CA AND ANGELITO
ALVIAR
GR No. 115129
FACTS:
After a prolonged pain and suffering, Barzagas wife
succumbed to a debilitating ailment on December 19,
1990. Forewarned of her impending death, she
wished to be buried before Christmas.
In the fulfilment of his wifes dying wish, Petitioner
arranged her internment on the 24th of December. On
December 21, 1990 at 3 pm, he went to Angelito
Alviars hardware store to inquire about the
availability of certain materials for the construction
of his wifes niche and if it could be delivered at
once. Alviars storekeeper replied that if there are
pending deliveries for this afternoon, it would be
delivered the following day.
Petitioner returned the following day at 7 am. He told
the employees that the materials he was buying
would have to be delivered at the cemetery by eight
in the morning since his hired workers were already
there and time was of the essence. With the assurance
that the materials will be delivered at the designated
time and place, he paid the full amount of P2, 110.00.
However, the materials were not delivered on time.
After several follow ups, Alviars employees gave
him the same answer, assuring him that the materials
will be delivered in no time. Due to the delay in the
delivery, the petitioner was forced to dismiss his
laborers for the day.
Petitioner, determined to fulfil his wifes dying wish
and distressed that Alviars employees were not the
least concerned, despite his impassioned pleas, he
decided to cancel the transaction and buy the
materials from another store. Her wife was finally
laid to rest two-and-a-half days behind schedule since
the niche was not finished in time.
Petitioner sued Alviar for compensation of the
damages caused by the delay. Respondent claims that
the legal delay could not be validly ascribed to him
because no specific time of delivery was agreed upon
and even if there was delay, it was due to a fortuitous
event since the truck suffered a flat tire.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner but such was
reversed by the CA.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON Alviar incurred delay in the fulfilment of his
obligation and is liable for damages?
RULING:
Yes. The Respondent was negligent and incurred
delay in performing his obligations. 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.
There was actually a specific time agreed upon for
the delivery of the materials. It was evident when the
petitioner only agreed to buy the materials when he
was assured of the immediate delivery according to
his time frame. Time was of the essence in the
delivery of the materials to the grave site. The niche
had to be constructed on the 22nd considering that it
would take about 2 days to finish the job if the
internment was on the 24th. Respondents delay on
the delivery wasted so much time that the
construction could only start on the 23rd.
Respondents justification that his truck had a flat tire
is unacceptable, for this event was foreseeable and
should have been reasonably guarded against.
This is a clear non-performance of a reciprocal
obligation. Petitioner had already complied with his
obligation as a purchaser when he paid the purchase
price. It was incumbent upon the respondent to
immediately fulfil his obligation to deliver otherwise
delay would attach.
Petition was granted. The Court ordered private
respondent to refund the purchase price of P2, 110.00
with interest, pay P20, 000.00 moral damages, P5,
000.00 litigation expenses and P5, 000.00 attorneys
fee.