Takao v. Belando Vda. de Iturralde
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Tsunetaro Takao (plaintiff-appellant) entered into a contract with Carmen Belando Vda. de Iturralde (defendant-appellee) for the construction of two houses for a total price of P30,700. The contract stipulated a period of ninety working days for completion and a penalty of P20 per day for any delay. Carlos A. Barretto was appointed as the architect to supervise the construction. Procedural History: The plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the balance due, extras, and damages. The defendant counterclaimed for damages. The lower court dismissed the plaintiff's petition and ordered the plaintiff to deliver possession, complete the houses within thirty days, and pay P20 per day in damages from July 1, 1925. The Appeal: The plaintiff appealed the decision, raising two main questions: whether the houses were completed according to the contract, and if not, what damages should be awarded. The plaintiff contended that he completed the houses within the contract period, except for delays caused by extras, and was entitled to the balance of P8,180 plus P645 for extras, and damages for delayed payments.
Issue(s)
Whether the two houses were completed in accordance with the terms of the contract. If not completed, what amount of damages should be allowed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court revoked the judgment of the lower court. It rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P8,825, representing the unpaid balance of P8,180 and P645 for extras, with costs. The claims for penalties and damages were disallowed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the preponderance of evidence indicated the two houses were completed in accordance with the terms of the contract. This conclusion was based on documentary proof, specifically the certificate dated July 20, 1925, issued by Carlos A. Barretto, the architect appointed by the defendant to supervise the construction, stating the houses were "fully completed." Further corroboration was provided by certificates from Jose Garrido, superintendent of construction and inspection, and Santiago Artiaga, city engineer, dated July 7, 1925, confirming compliance with ordinances. An additional certificate from Francisco Espinola, Register Master Plumber, dated July 1, 1925, certified the completion of plumbing work. The Court also noted Exhibit O, a complaint filed by the defendant in municipal court in January 1926 to recover possession, which implicitly acknowledged the existence and construction of the houses. On Issue 2: Given the finding that the houses were completed in accordance with the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of the contract price. The Court also found that the extras amounting to P645 were furnished at the request of and accepted by the defendant, thus she was obligated to pay for them. Regarding the penalty of P20 per day stipulated in the contract, the Court was of the opinion that there was nothing in the record, nor in justice and equity, that demanded the allowance of this claim or the counterclaim for damages. Therefore, both the claim for penalties by the plaintiff and the counterclaim for damages by the defendant were disallowed.
Main Doctrine
In a contract for construction, the contractor is entitled to recover the unpaid balance of the contract price and the cost of authorized extras if the construction is proven to be completed in accordance with the terms of the contract and specifications. Such completion can be established through documentary evidence like certificates from the supervising architect and relevant government officials, which may outweigh conflicting oral testimony. Claims for penalties for delay are subject to proof and equitable considerations.