My contractor finished the job but the work is defective — can I make him redo it or fix it at his cost?

The standard the work has to meet

Article 1715 sets a double test: the work must have the qualities agreed upon and must have no defects which destroy or lessen its value or fitness for its ordinary or stipulated use. Both limbs are worth noticing. A contractor who built exactly what the plans showed has still not performed if the result cannot be used for what it was plainly for, and one who produced something serviceable has still not performed if he quietly departed from the specification you paid for. Which limb you are running on shapes the evidence, because the first is proved from the contract documents and the second from the building itself.

Ask him to cure it first

The article continues: Should the work be not of such quality, the employer may require that the contractor remove the defect or execute another work. The election between removing the defect and redoing the work is the employer's, and the demand is the necessary first step. Only if the contractor fails or refuses to comply may the employer have the defect removed or another work executed at the contractor's cost. Owners who skip straight to hiring a replacement and then send the bill hand the original contractor his best answer, which is that he was never given the opportunity the article contemplates.

Making the cost recoverable

Since you may end up recovering what you spent, spend it in a way that survives scrutiny. Put the defect in writing with photographs and a description that ties it to the specification, set a reasonable period to attend to it, and keep whatever refusal or silence follows. Then obtain more than one quotation for the remedial work, keep the scope limited to curing the defect rather than upgrading the property, and take official receipts in your own name. An independent assessment of the defect before the remedial work starts is usually the single most useful document.

Who else may be answerable

The contractor cannot deflect blame onto the men on site. Article 1727 provides that he is responsible for the work done by persons employed by him. And where the failure is grave rather than merely defective, Article 1723 makes the engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications liable in damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure it should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications or due to defects in the ground, with the contractor likewise responsible if the edifice falls within the same period on the grounds that article specifies.

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.

• Owen Prosper A. Mackay vs. Spouses Dana Caswell and Cerelina Caswell, G.R. No. 183872, November 17, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• FAJ Construction & Development Corporation vs Susan M. Saulog, G.R. No. 200759, March 25, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Engineering & Machinery Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 52267, January 24, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1715 — Quality of the Work; Remedies for Defects
• Civil Code, Article 1719 — Acceptance and Hidden Defects
• Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse
• Civil Code, Article 1727 — Contractor's Responsibility for His Workers