G.R. No. L-10057; January 27, 1916
DIAO CONTINO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NOVO & COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Diao Contino and defendant Novo & Company entered into a written contract on March 31April 10, 1908, whereby the defendant agreed to repair plaintiff’s steamer Isabela for ₱18,182 within ninety days. The vessel was delivered to the defendant on April 6, 1908. On November 11, 1908, the parties executed a supplementary written contract for additional repairs (renewal of “rozaderos”) for ₱900. The vessel was completed and returned to the plaintiff on February 11, 1909.

On January 19, 1910, plaintiff sued defendant for damages of ₱32,250, representing loss of use of the vessel for 215 days from July 6, 1908 (the expiry of the 90-day period) to February 11, 1909. Defendant denied liability, alleging that delays were due to plaintiff’s instructions, and filed a cross-complaint seeking: (a) ₱11,768.20 for extra work not covered by the contracts; (b) ₱1,638 for docking fees; and (c) ₱1,000 for business libel.

The trial court absolved the defendant of plaintiff’s claim and awarded defendant ₱11,619.70 for extra work. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages for delay in completing the repairs.

RULING:
1. On plaintiff’s claim for damages: The Supreme Court held that plaintiff is not entitled to damages. The plaintiff, by entering into the supplementary contract in November 1908 (after the original 90-day period had expired) and by failing to protest the delay during the repairs or until nearly a year after the vessel’s return, consented to an extension of time. Thus, defendant is not liable for delay.

2. On defendant’s cross-claim:
– Extra work: The Court reversed the trial court’s award of ₱11,619.70. Defendant’s claim was based on quantum meruit, requiring proof of (a) the quantity of work performed outside the contracts, and (b) its reasonable value. The defendant failed to prove either. The trial court erred in shifting the burden to plaintiff to disprove the charges and in relying on an unsubstantiated presumption that the transactions were just. Defendant did not establish that the alleged extras were distinct from the work covered by the written contracts or their reasonable value.
– Docking fees and libel damages: These claims were rejected for lack of proof.

DISPOSITIVE:
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The complaint is dismissed. No costs awarded.