Barzaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

115129
Doctrine/s:
General Rule: Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from th
e time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillme
nt of their obligation.
Exceptions:
(1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or
(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that
the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is
to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract;
or
(3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his
power to perform.
In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not c
omply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon h
im. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the oth
er begins.
Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligenc
e, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liabl
e for damages.
Facts:
Mrs. Barzaga died of a terminal illness in 1990. Her last request was that she b
e buried before Christmas day of that year so as to spare her family the pain of
mourning during the holiday as well as the burden of post-mortem ceremonies.
On 21 December 1990, Mr. Barzaga went to the store of Mr. Alviar to purchase the
materials needed to construct the niche of his wife. Seeing as the undertaking
would require at least two full days to complete, he requested that the material
s be delivered on the following day.
The materials were not delivered on 22 December as agreed despite repeated remin
ders and demands from Mr. Barzaga. On 23 December, he decided to cancel the tran
saction and purchase the materials from another store. His wife's death wish was
not fulfilled.
Bereaved and aggrieved, Mr. Barzaga filed for damages against Mr. Alviar. The la
tter alleged that the delay was caused by his delivery vehicle suffering a flat
tire.
Issue: W/N Mr. Alviar is liable for delay.
Held: Yes. (see doctrine)
In this case, there was delay because of the second exception (circumstances dic
tate that the time of delivery or rendition of service is a controlling motive f
or the establishment of the contract).
The defense of Mr. Alviar was entirely self-serving especially as it was discove
red that the delay was caused not by the vehicle suffering a flat tire but was i
nstead coming from a delivery in Cavite.