Short answer. Yes. Article 1167 lets you have defective work corrected at the contractor's expense. When someone bound to do a job does it against the terms of the agreement, the law allows the work to be executed properly at his cost, and it may even be decreed that what was poorly done be undone.
What the law says
If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost. This same rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the obligation. Furthermore, it may be decreed that what has been poorly done be undone.
Civil Code, Article 1167 — Failure in Obligations to Do. Read the full provision →
The law on badly done work
Article 1167 is the provision for an obligation to do — like building or finishing a job — that goes wrong. It states: If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost. This same rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the obligation. Furthermore, it may be decreed that what has been poorly done be undone. That single article gives you three connected remedies: having the work done properly at the contractor's cost, applying that same rule when he does the job wrongly, and having defective work torn out. Your situation — a finished but badly done job — falls right inside it.
'Contravention of the tenor' covers substandard work
You might think the article only bites when a contractor does nothing at all. It does more than that. The second sentence extends the same treatment to a contractor who does it in contravention of the tenor of the obligation — that is, who does the work, but not in the way the agreement required. Doing the job wrongly is treated much like not doing it. So a contractor who ignored the agreed specifications, used the wrong methods or materials, or delivered work that departs from what you contracted for is squarely within the provision. You are not limited to cases of total abandonment; poor, non-conforming performance qualifies too.
Redoing or undoing at his expense
The remedies are practical. Because the defective work may be executed at his cost, you can have the job done properly — including by engaging another party to correct or complete it — and look to the contractor to bear that expense rather than paying twice out of your own pocket. And where the bad work needs to be removed before it can be set right, the article allows a court to decree that what has been poorly done be undone. So tearing out and redoing substandard work is an available outcome, with the cost falling on the contractor who produced it, not on you as the innocent owner.
Limits and practical steps
The remedy targets a real departure from the agreement, so you will generally need to show what was agreed and how the work fell short of it. The provision is corrective, not punitive — it aims to get you the performance you bargained for at the contractor's expense. On top of that, you may claim damages for losses the bad work caused you. To protect yourself, keep the contract, plans, specifications, photographs, and repair quotations. Bear in mind, too, that a genuinely minor deviation may in some cases be better handled through a reduction in price than a full redo, so the scale of the defect matters to the sensible remedy.
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.
- Heirs of Ramon C. Gaite, et al. vs. The Plaza, Inc. and FGU Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 177685, January 26, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Continental Cement Corp., vs. Filipinas (PREFAB) Systems, Inc, G.R. No. 176917, August 4, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Playinn, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee And Assurance, Inc, G.R. No. 254764, November 29, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →