Short answer. Either is allowed. Article 1713 of the Civil Code defines a contract for a piece of work and states that the contractor may either employ only his labor or skill, or also furnish the material. The parties decide which arrangement they want; the law does not force materials onto the contractor.
What the law says
The contractor may either employ only his labor or skill, or also furnish the material.
Civil Code, Article 1713 — Contract for a Piece of Work Defined. Read the full provision →
What a contract for a piece of work is
The article first defines the arrangement: by the contract for a piece of work the contractor binds himself to execute a piece of work for the employer, in consideration of a certain price or compensation. The essence is a promised result delivered for a price, whether that result is a built structure, a repaired machine, or a finished tailored suit. It is the result the employer is buying. Within that frame, the law then answers the very question owners and tradesmen most often argue about at the outset: who brings the materials to the job.
Both arrangements are lawful
The provision settles it plainly. The contractor may either employ only his labor or skill, or also furnish the material. There is no default rule compelling the contractor to supply materials, and none forbidding it either. A labor-only arrangement, where the owner buys and provides the materials and pays the contractor for his work, is perfectly valid. So is a turnkey arrangement where the contractor supplies everything and charges one price for the finished result. What governs is what the two of you agreed, so the contract should state clearly which model applies.
Why the choice matters beyond price
The labor-versus-materials question is not only about cost; it decides who carries certain risks. When the contractor furnishes the materials, the quality and suitability of those materials are ordinarily his responsibility. When the owner supplies them, the owner has taken that part on himself, and separate rules govern what happens if the owner's own poor materials cause the work to fail. Spelling out who provides what therefore does more than divide the bill: it allocates responsibility if something goes wrong, and it shapes who answers for a defective result later.
Put the arrangement in writing
Because both models are lawful, disputes rarely turn on what the law allows and almost always on what was agreed. Before work starts, record whether the contractor supplies materials, all of them or only some, and who bears the cost of any shortfall or price change. Note the agreed price and whether it includes materials. A clear written scope prevents the common quarrel in which the owner assumed a turnkey job while the contractor priced labor alone, and it gives each side a fixed reference if the finished work is later questioned.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Engineering & Machinery Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 52267, January 24, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 115349, April 18, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →