Owen Prosper Mackay vs Spouses Dana and Cerelina Caswell

G.R. No. 183872 – 747 Phil. 1 – Civil Law – Obligations and Contracts – Article 1715 – Demand Need Not Be In Writing

Spouses Dana and Cerelina Caswell contracted Owen Prosper Mackay for the installation of electric wirings in their properties. They agreed that the cost of Mackay’s service will be Php250k to be paid as the project develops. By the time the spouses were able to pay Mackay Php227k, Mackay informed the spouses that the job was already done. The Caswells then applied for electrification with the power company but their application was denied due to the substandard electric installations. The Caswells tried to notify Mackay but he was nowhere to be found. Since they cannot locate him, they paid the power company Php69k to rectify the substandard work of Mackay. Thereafter, the Caswells sued Mackay for estafa but the criminal case was dismissed. Thereafter, Mackay filed a civil case for collection of sum of money against the Caswells for the unpaid Php27k. The Caswells filed a counterclaim for the Php69k they paid the power company.

The MTC ruled in favor of the Caswells. The RTC reversed the Decision of the MTC on the ground that the Caswells should have first filed a case for specific performance against Mackay to determine if indeed Mackay was civilly liable. The CA reversed the RTC decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA is correct.

HELD: Yes. To require the Caswells to file an action for specific performance, as opined by the RTC, not only deprives them of hiring someone else to rectify the work, but also defeats the very purpose of the contracted work, i.e., to immediately have electricity in their home. In this situation, time is of the essence.

Under Article 1715 of the Civil Code, if the work of a contractor has defects which destroy or lessen its value or fitness for its ordinary or stipulated use, he may be required to remove the defect or execute another work. If he fails to do so, he shall be liable for the expenses by the employer for the correction of the work. The demand required of the employer under the subject provision need not be in a particular form. In the case at bar, Mackay was given the opportunity to rectify his work. Subsequent to the power company’s disapproval to supply the Caswells electricity for several reasons, the Court gives credence to the Caswell’s claim that they looked for Mackay to demand a rectification of the work, but Mackay was nowhere to be found. Had Mackay really been readily available to the Caswells to correct any deficiency in the work, the latter would not have entertained the thought that they were deceived and would not have been constrained to undergo the rigors of filing a criminal complaint and testifying therein. Without doubt, the Caswells exercised due diligence when they demanded from Mackay the proper rectification of his work. As correctly held by the CA, the Caswells substantially complied with the requirement of Article 1715 of the Civil Code.

Read full text.