I'm owed a choice between two different services, not physical things, and one of them becomes impossible — do the same creditor's-choice rules for alternative obligations apply here too?

The article extends beyond physical things

Article 1205 is written mainly around alternative obligations to deliver one of several things, but it does not stop there. Its final sentence makes the extension explicit: "the same rules shall be applied to obligations to do or not to do in case one, some or all of the prestations should become impossible." A prestation is simply the specific act, or service, owed under the obligation. So where you are owed a choice between two different services rather than two things, and one of those services becomes impossible to perform, the rules below apply by that same sentence.

The choice belongs to the creditor until exercised

Article 1205 opens by confirming that "when the choice has been expressly given to the creditor, the obligation shall cease to be alternative from the day when the selection has been communicated to the debtor." Until the creditor communicates that selection, the obligation stays alternative, and the debtor's responsibility for what happens to any one of the options — including a service becoming impossible to render — is governed by the numbered rules that follow, rather than by whatever the debtor happens to prefer.

If a service becomes impossible without the debtor's fault

Applied to services, the first rule works the same way it works for things: "if one of the things is lost through a fortuitous event, he shall perform the obligation by delivering that which the creditor should choose from among the remainder, or that which remains if only one subsists." Translated to services, if one of the alternative prestations becomes impossible through no fault of the debtor, the debtor still has to render whichever remaining service the creditor chooses — or the only one left, if just one is still possible.

If the debtor is at fault for the impossibility

The remaining rules in Article 1205 also carry over. Where the loss, or here the impossibility, of one option happens through the debtor's fault, the creditor may claim performance of any of the remaining prestations, or the value of the one that became impossible, along with a right to damages. And if every alternative service becomes impossible through the debtor's fault, the creditor's choice falls on the value of any one of them, again with indemnity for damages — the same structure the article sets out for things, carried over to services by its closing sentence.

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.

• Romago, Inc. and Francisco Gonzalez vs. Associated Bank (Now United Overseas Bank Phils.) and Metallor Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 223450, February 22, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Bank of the Philippine Islands vs Amador Domingo (deceased) substituted by his children, Joann Moya, et al, G.R. No. 169407, March 25, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Chester Babst, vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 99398, January 26, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 104625, January 26, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1205 — Loss When the Creditor Has the Choice