Soco v. Veloso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Telesforo de Dios Chua Soco entered into a verbal contract in the summer of 1897 with Don Buenaventura Veloso to construct a warehouse roof at $5.50 per square meter, with the plaintiff furnishing all materials and labor. The plaintiff commenced work on November 4, 1897, and continued until April 1898, when work was interrupted by the insurrection. The plaintiff left Cebu for Manila on April 18, 1898, and returned in May 1899. Don Buenaventura Veloso died in June 1897. His brother, the defendant Mariano Veloso, succeeded to his rights and, shortly before the plaintiff's return in 1899, resumed work on the building, employing a contractor named Pau and refusing the plaintiff any involvement. Procedural History: In January 1902, the plaintiff filed an action seeking 9,000 pesos, comprising costs of materials (galvanized iron, timber, etc.), labor, and 1,372 pesos in profit. The court below awarded the plaintiff 2,655 pesos. Both parties excepted. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied, and a bill of exceptions was prepared. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the judgment, seeking to recover additional amounts, particularly for galvanized iron and other materials, and profits. The defendant also appealed, challenging certain aspects of the award.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the cost of galvanized iron allegedly used by the defendant. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of timber left in the building. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover prospective profits. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of other materials used in the work. Whether the court erred in double-deducting certain items. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover for timber used in the work. Whether the plaintiff should have been allowed to testify regarding conversations with the deceased Don Buenaventura Veloso. Whether the plaintiff's objection to the defendant's testimony regarding an inventory item was timely.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is modified by adding P87.50 to the amount awarded to the plaintiff, making the total award P2,742.50. The judgment, as modified, is affirmed. Neither party is allowed to recover costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of galvanized iron: The Court affirmed the lower court's disallowance of the plaintiff's claim for the cost of galvanized iron. The plaintiff's testimony that the iron disappeared before his return in 1899, coupled with his failure to object when the defendant allegedly used his property, weakened his claim. Furthermore, the defendant presented witnesses who testified that the iron used belonged to Buenaventura Veloso and the contractor Pau, or that no iron was placed on the roof until after the plaintiff's return. The Court concluded that the evidence did not show the defendant used the plaintiff's material and that it was likely lost due to the insurrection. On the issue of timber: The Court upheld the finding that none of the plaintiff's timber left in the building in April 1898 was used by the defendant when work resumed in May 1899. Evidence from the defendant's witnesses indicated that all timber had disappeared by the time work recommenced, and that Buenaventura Veloso had a substantial stock of timber used in the construction. The Court found sufficient evidence to show that 200 pieces of the defendant's timber were used. On the issue of profits: The Court correctly rejected the plaintiff's claim for profits. There was no evidence presented to establish the actual profits earned on the work performed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's statement regarding potential profits if the contract were completed was speculative and not a basis for recovery. On the issue of other materials: The Court did not err in rejecting the plaintiff's claim for other materials (exclusive of iron and timber). While the plaintiff proved he bought such materials, he failed to provide evidence showing what portion was used in the work before suspension or that the defendant used any of it. On the issue of double-deduction: The Court found that two items, $50 and $37.50, were erroneously deducted twice by the court below, as they were part of a larger rejected sum. This error amounted to $87.50, which was ordered to be added to the plaintiff's award. On the defendant's appeal regarding timber: The Court found no error in the defendant's appeal concerning timber, as the evidence supported the use of 200 pieces of the defendant's timber. The assignment of error based on Article 442 of the Civil Code was deemed unimportant in light of the finding that the defendant did not use any of the plaintiff's timber or galvanized iron. On the plaintiff's testimony regarding conversations with the deceased: The Court dismissed the defendant's assignment of error regarding the plaintiff's testimony about conversations with the deceased Buenaventura Veloso. This was because no objection was raised in the court below, and no exception was taken to its admission. The Court noted that even without this testimony, there was ample evidence regarding Buenaventura Veloso's stock of timber. On the plaintiff's motion to strike: The Court found the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's testimony regarding an inventory item to be too late. Objections should be made before an answer is given. Moreover, the plaintiff was not prejudiced as there was abundant evidence to show that Buenaventura Veloso possessed the galvanized iron.
Main Doctrine
A party seeking to recover costs for materials and labor must provide sufficient evidence to prove that such materials were used in the construction or that the defendant made use of them. Unsubstantiated claims for profits are not recoverable.