G.R. No. L-4877 / March 31, 1911
CRISANTO LICHAUCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHO-CHUN-CHAC, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This case involves the execution of a prior final judgment of the Supreme Court dated November 18, 1900. That judgment ordered the specific performance of a contract wherein defendant Cho-Chun-Chac (or his estate, as represented by his heir) was to construct three launches for plaintiff Crisanto Lichauco at a specified contract price. The judgment allowed the plaintiff to have the launches built at the defendant’s expense and to recover any excess cost over the contract price. Only one launch was actually constructed under this judgment, at a cost exceeding the original contract price. The plaintiff filed the present action to recover: (1) the excess cost for the launch that was built; (2) estimated damages equivalent to the difference between the contract price and the estimated cost of building the two unconstructed launches; and (3) reimbursement for an advance payment of P4,895 made by the plaintiff for the unexecuted portion of the contract. The trial court granted all these claims. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the actual excess cost incurred in constructing the one launch.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages based on the estimated cost of the two unconstructed launches.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the advance payment made for the unexecuted portion of the contract in this same action.

RULING

1. Yes, as to the actual excess cost for the constructed launch. The Supreme Court affirmed this portion of the trial court’s judgment. The defendant is bound by the 1900 final judgment, which he never sought to set aside. The evidence proved the launch was built at the defendant’s expense at a cost exceeding the contract price by P1,824.16, which the plaintiff is entitled to recover.

2. No, as to damages for the two unconstructed launches. The Supreme Court reversed this portion. The 1900 judgment was for specific performance, not for damages. The plaintiff, having elected to sue for and obtain a judgment for specific performance, cannot arbitrarily abandon the unexecuted part of the contract and convert that judgment into one for damages based on mere estimated costs. The evidence also showed the plaintiff had in fact abandoned the unexecuted portion of the contract before filing this action.

3. Yes, as to the recovery of the advance payment. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of this claim. The complaint expressly prayed for reimbursement of the P4,895 advance. The evidence satisfactorily established this claim, and there is no reason to require the plaintiff to file a separate action for it. Justice demands its resolution in this proceeding to avoid further litigation.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P6,719.16 (P1,824.16 excess cost + P4,895 advance), with legal interest from March 6, 1907 (the filing date of the complaint). No costs were awarded to either party in this instance. The record was ordered returned to the trial court for execution.

CONCURRING OPINION:
Justice Moreland concurred with the majority except for the award of the P4,895 advance, which he believed should not have been granted against the defendant.