GR 183872; (November, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183872 November 17, 2014
OWEN PROSPER A. MACKAY, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES DANA CASWELL and CERELINA CASWELL, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Spouses Dana and Cerelina Caswell hired petitioner Owen Prosper A. Mackay to perform electrical installation work in their newly built home for a contract price of ₱250,000.00, after he underbid the quote of Zambales II Electric Cooperative (ZAMECO II). The Caswells paid Mackay ₱227,000.00. Upon completion, ZAMECO II inspected the work and found numerous defects and deficiencies, itemized in a letter dated August 11, 1998, which prevented the energization of the house. The Caswells could not locate Mackay to rectify the defects and were constrained to engage ZAMECO II to perform the corrective work. The Caswells filed an estafa case against Mackay, but he was acquitted on reasonable doubt. Mackay then filed a complaint to collect the unpaid balance of ₱23,000.00. The Caswells counterclaimed for reimbursement of their expenses to rectify the defective work.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Owen Prosper A. Mackay is entitled to collect the unpaid contract balance from the respondents, or whether the respondents are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of rectifying the defective electrical installation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Mackay’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision reinstating the Municipal Trial Court’s judgment. Mackay is not entitled to the unpaid balance. The contract was one for a piece of work governed by Article 1715 of the Civil Code. The electrical installation was proven to be defective and not fit for its intended use, as detailed in ZAMECO II’s inspection report and confirmed by the latter’s refusal to energize the line. The Caswells’ efforts to contact Mackay and their demand that he secure the necessary permits constituted a substantial request for him to rectify the flaws. His subsequent unavailability and filing of a collection suit demonstrated his refusal to comply. Pursuant to Article 1715, the Caswells had the right to have the defects corrected at the contractor’s cost. The Court found the Caswells’ evidence for rectification costs (totaling ₱69,205.00) credible. After deducting the ₱23,000.00 balance claimed by Mackay, he was ordered to pay the Caswells ₱46,205.00. The award of damages and attorney’s fees by the Regional Trial Court in favor of Mackay was reversed.