G.R. No. 115129 February 12, 1997
IGNACIO BARZAGA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ANGELITO ALVIAR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ignacio Barzaga sought to purchase construction materials from respondent Angelito Alviar’s hardware store to build a niche for his wife, who had passed away. Her dying wish was to be interred before Christmas Day. On December 22, 1990, Barzaga returned to the store, paid in full for the materials, and secured a promise from the storekeeper that the items would be delivered to the cemetery by 8:00 AM that same day, as his workers were already waiting. Despite repeated follow-ups and assurances from the store’s employees, the materials were not delivered by 10:30 AM. Barzaga, distressed, canceled the transaction, lodged a police complaint, and eventually purchased materials elsewhere later that afternoon.
The delay forced Barzaga to postpone construction, resulting in his wife’s burial being delayed by two and a half days. He sued Alviar for damages. The trial court ruled in his favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was no contractual commitment for a specific delivery time as it was not indicated in the invoices, and that delivery within a reasonable time was sufficient.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Alviar incurred delay in the performance of his contractual obligation, thereby entitling petitioner Barzaga to damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, with modification. The Court found that a specific time for delivery was indeed agreed upon—8:00 AM on December 22, 1990—as clearly established by Barzaga’s testimony and the surrounding circumstances of urgency communicated to the store’s employees. The failure to indicate this time in the invoices does not negate the verbal agreement. Alviar’s defense of a flat tire was deemed insufficient to overcome the finding of delay, as the evidence showed his employees were not ready to load the materials even when Barzaga returned to the store. This constituted delay in the performance of an obligation, making the obligor liable for damages.
The Court awarded moral damages due to the mental anguish suffered by Barzaga from his inability to fulfill his wife’s final wish, and exemplary damages to deter similar future conduct. However, the award of temperate damages was deleted, as the alleged pecuniary losses (e.g., workers’ wages, extended wake expenses) were by nature capable of proof, and their failure to be proven precludes such an award. The refund of the purchase price, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees were affirmed.