Plaintiff  sues for a total of  Pl,030.70,  in payment for labor and materials used on a boiler belonging to  defendant.

A part of this labor and materials was furnished in accordance with  an  estimate  submitted by  plaintiff to defendant and approved by the latter; and the rest  was added by agreement of both parties  the former  was  for a  sum of P954, as shown  in Exhibit  A, and  the latter was for the sum of P76.70, as itemized in his complaint.

Defendant refused  to  pay  the amount  asked,  alleging in his reply that he had applied to the plaintiff to examine the boiler, and after examination plaintiff had agreed with him to put the boiler in good condition for the sum of P950.

The Court of First Instance of the city of Manila found: (1) That the work to be done on  the  boiler was agreed upon in the estimate, Exhibit A, and that its value amounts to P954;  (2) That later additional work was done in connecting the boiler with a  washing-machine of the Manila Steam Laundry, to the value of P65, which, added to the foregoing P954, makes a total of P1,019; (3) That when the boiler had been connected with the machine and examined by the boiler inspector under  the supervision of the city engineer of Manila, in conformity with ordinances in force, the latter refused to issue the permit necessary for its operation, because the boiler was not in proper condition, not being able to withstand a pressure of 90 pounds, making necessary the repairs  indicated by  the boiler inspector for its safe operation.  The city engineer added that the lower  back plate required a patch and this patch could not be put in place because of the peculiar position of the plate.

But the court did not  find:  (1) That it was agreed between plaintiff  and defendant that the boiler and  machine should withstand a pressure of 90 pounds; (2) that it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant  that the boiler and machine would be subjected to inspection; (3) that, even though this were taken for granted,  it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant that, without the approval of the city engineer,  the work  of the  plaintiff would not  be accepted, nor its value paid;  (4) that the plaintiff did not perform all the work agreed upon in the said estimate, as well as the additional work necessary  for  connecting it with the machine;  (5) that the work which, according to the city engineer,  the plaintiff did not perform or left undone, as well as the additional work  for connecting the boiler with the machine, would be included in the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant according to the estimate, Exhibit A.

From the foregoing finding of facts proven  and not proven, the court reaches the following conclusions:

1. That the plaintiff on his part fulfilled the contract and performed all the work entrusted  to him by the defendant, as well as the additional work necessary for the operation of the machine.
   
2.  
3. That as it was not agreed between the  plaintiff and the defendant that the approval of the city engineer would be a necessary condition to payment for the work; and that as  it was not  proven that the defects noted  by the city engineer were due to the plaintiff's failure to do the work agreed upon between him and the defendant in the estimate, Exhibit A, it is clear that the plaintiff can not be held responsible for the defects in the  boiler and machine that were noted by the city engineer,  nor for the damages  incurred by the defendant from the failure of the machine to operate at the proper time: damages for which the defendant in  turn makes a counterclaim.

For  all these reasons the court  sentences the defendant to pay to the plaintiff P1,019, with legal interest at 6 per rent a year on said sum  from July 12, 1909,  the date of filing the  complaint, until  its  complete  liquidation, and to pay   the costs; and dismisses the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff.

Defendant appealed, because of the court's holding Exhibit A to be a contract between parties; for  holding that plaintiff had performed the work according to the contract; and for having granted the plaintiff the sum of money he sues  for on account of work the defendant had entrusted to him as a skilled mechanic or engineer, when this amount of money and the labor employed on the work  have not been useful or profitable to the defendant, for whom, rather, the value of the boiler has been lessened.

It  appears from the trial:

1.  That the  defendant testified as follows: 

"I  bought this boiler at second-hand, knowing nothing about what  condition  it was in except what could be seen from the outside.   Wishing to put it in  good condition for operating the machinery of the new laundry,  I asked for bids from various mechanics of the city, as to what the repairs would cost for putting the boiler in usable condition and fit for operation.   Among the mechanics I  remember Messrs. Taylor, McChesney, Manuel Earnshaw, and I think also the San  Nicholas Iron Works.   I think I received bids or  estimates  from  all  of them.   I  contracted  with Mr. Taylor, whose agent examined the boiler and prepared a list of the repairs to be made for putting the boiler in usable condition.  He said  that he could make these repairs for nine hundred and fifty-four pesos.   As this was the lowest bid, I immediately closed the deal."   (Sten. notes, 24, 25.)

The contract, therefore, consisted "in the plaintiff's making repairs to the boiler to put it in usable condition"

D. M. McChesney, one of the above-mentioned mechanics, was called as a  witness for the defendant, and testified: That the  defendant had in fact applied to him; that he had made an  estimate, but it had not been accepted, perhaps because it was too high;  that a condition of his contract was that "the boiler should be put  in very good  condition, so that it  would be approved by the inspector."   "It would be necessary," so he says, "according to the conditions in our  regulations."  [Sten.  notes,  17.]  He then confirms the defendant's statement that the  inspector, accompanied by the manager of the  laundry, tested the boiler after its installation by the  plaintiff (it does not appear that  the latter was present); and  replies  to the following cross-questions :

"Q. Did you examine  the boiler and the machinery after it had been installed there by Mr. Taylor? - A.  Yes,  sir; I was the first to  fill the boiler and put it under pressure.

"Q. Did you notice the various repairs made by  Mr. Taylor?- A.  I  was  not very familiar  with  what  Mr. Taylor had done to the boiler, only with respect to the pipes and they were in  good condition.

"Q. Did you operate the machine? - A. Yes, sir.

"Q. How did it work ? - A.  The machinery seemed to run well.

"Q. Do you remember  what pressure there was in the boiler? - A. Yes, sir; I remember the pressure I put on the boiler, but the inspector would have had me arrested if I had continued with the pressure I had put on.

"Q. What pressure did  you put on the boiler? - A. Between ninety and a hundred pounds."   (Sten. notes, 19, 20.)

The defendant again  testifies, saying that the  place where the  boiler and machinery were installed was indicated by the manager of the Manila Steam Laundry.

"Q. By whose authority did  Mr. McChesney  test the machinery? - A. They made a kind of test of the machinery of the laundry without my knowledge.

"Q. To whom do you refer? - A. To Mr. McChesney and the manager of the laundry."  (Sten.  notes, 45.)

The witness McChesney was further cross-examined:

"Q. Do you know whether the boiler inspector examined this boiler before these repairs were made? - A.  Only from what the inspector told me.

"Q. Did  the  inspector indicate to you the repairs that had to be made so that they could afterwards be approved? -  A.  Yes, sir; he indicated  what had to be repaired in the boiler.

"Q. And did you make  your  calculation  on  what was indicated by the inspector? - A.  No, sir; the calculation I made was before talking with the inspector.

"Q. Before making your bid, didn't you know what the inspector would require? - A.  No, sir."  (Sten. notes, 21.)

John  Karsten,  engineer, witness for  the  plaintiff, and employed by the latter on  that contract, testifies regarding the facts entered in the complaint: that he had submitted the estimate, Exhibit A;  that the defendant asked him what pressure the boiler would have and he told him that in his opinion  it would have a  pressure of about  sixty pounds, and the  boiler was repaired  in accordance with that estimate; that he tested the boiler under hydraulic; and steam pressure and everything was in good condition.

From the foregoing evidence it appears: That for the proposed contract with McChesney, the latter talked with the boiler inspector, who indicated to him the repairs that had to be made to the boiler so that its installation would be approved; while for the proposed contract with Taylor, which was  subsequent to McChesney's,  there was not the slightest connection with said inspector.

Now what was the gist  of the contract?  This the defendant fixes exactly in several  passages in his evidence:

"Repairs  necessary  to put the boiler in  usable condition.(Page 24.)

"List  of  repairs he (Taylor) has  to make  to put the boiler in usable condition.  (Page 25.)

"Karsten said that  he would have the boiler in usable condition before the  arrival of the  September  transport. (Page 25.)

"They informed me that the boiler was finished and ready for use,  two days before  the arrival  of the  transport. (Page 25.)

"He (Taylor)  submitted a statement of the repairs he said were necessary to put the boiler in usable condition. (Page 44.)

"*   *   *   and if those were the repairs necessary to put the boiler in  usable condition, I told him  (Karsten) that I would inform him afterwards, but I did not at the time accept his proposition.   (Page 44.)

"I applied to Taylor later.   The purpose of the conversation with  him, acceptance of his bid for repairs."  (Page 44.)

Nevertheless, on page 5 of his brief the appellant says:

"The plaintiff in the presence of the  city engineer, admitted that the contract was to place the boiler in first-class condition to be  used in the laundry, but denied that he agreed that it would  pass inspection.  (Page  57.)  But had it been placed even in a usable condition,  not necessarily first-class, his contract would have been performed."

On  page  56 appears  a question directed to the  city engineer, Mr. Wylie, to this effect:

"In order to refresh your memory,  I would like to ask you if Mr. Pierce asked Mr. Taylor, 'If you  agreed to put the boiler in first-class condition, wasn't it  up to you to do so?' and Mr. Taylor answered, 'Yes, sir; but I  didn't guarantee that it  would  pass inspection;' and  you  [the witness]  replied that if the boiler had been put in  first-class condition  it would have been approved by the inspector."

And on page 57 appears what Mr. Wylie really said:

"Mr. Pierce claimed that Mr. Taylor  had contracted with him to sell or perhaps to repair a boiler and the conditions of this contract were that it would be put in first-class condition,  Mr. Taylor stated that the  conditions were not that the boiler be approved  by the boiler inspector; while Mr. Pierce regarded this as the standard of its being put in first-class condition; and when these two points arose in the discussion, I  told him that if he had put the  boiler in first-class condition, it Would necessarily have received the approval of the boiler inspector."

Considerably  previous  to  the foregoing, there  appears in the record,  on page 28, the following regarding what Mr. Pierce really said:

"Mr. Taylor talked to me again about this matter in my office.  I again told him, in the presence of Mr. Wylie, that he agreed to put the boiler in usable  condition, and that it was his duty to do so.  Mr. Taylor answered yes, but that it had  not been agreed that said boiler would receive Mr. Wylie's approval on inspection.  I answered him that if it had been  in  good  condition  it  would have passed inspection."

Taylor  and McChesney testify that they never said that they would put the boiler in first-class condition; tfte work done was to put the boiler in a condition to withstand a pressure of 60 pounds.

If, according to the appellant, the contract would have been  fulfilled by putting  the  boiler in usable  condition, without need for first-class work, then it has been fulfilled, especially as the boiler has been put in a condition to be used, in usable condition, in accordance with the agreement in the contract.  The engineer McChesney, witness for the appellant, certifies that the machinery worked well,  that it easily withstood a pressure of sixty pounds, for which the repairs made on that boiler were intended.  If it was required that the boiler withstand  greater pressure,  that should have been expressly stipulated in the contract.  There is no reason or indication that this condition could or ought to be understood by  implication in a contract the terms whereof are merely those of the boiler's being used or in usable condition.

When the appellant received the appellee's estimate, Exhibit A,  he had other estimates submitted by  other mechanics, among  these McChesney's, and  he  withheld his reply, promising to say later whether he accepted it or not. He was able to make  comparisons, and he expressly stated that "if those were the repairs  necessary for putting the boiler in usable condition he would inform him later," and afterwards he had to state his acceptance to the appellee. So it is logical to infer that he would do so knowingly and would not confide  wholly in  the skill of  the  other party to the contract.

Work  superior to  a usable condition, and  a first-class condition that presupposes inferior classes, are relative terms which are not  enforcible  in  contracts for work to be done,  unless  expressly  stipulated.  Greater  power of resistance than that possessed by the thing made and the highest condition of perfection to which a piece of work can be raised, as first-class of its kind, are not terms that must be understood in  a contract  for work to  be done. They must  be expressly required in  the contract in order to be enforcible.   Otherwise, it could happen that a perfect piece of work of the best kind, for which the money promised would not be adequate, might be required for a medium or minimum price.

The findings in the judgment appealed from clearly demonstrate that it  was not  a condition of the contract that the work had to be first class, nor that it was a condition of the contract that acceptance of the work had to depend upon the approval of a third party.   With reference to the preliminaries of the contract,  the  difference between McChesney's and Taylor's proposals is quite clear:  the former's contained that condition of the approval of the boiler inspector; the latter's  made not the slightest mention of this approval, until  the work was done.  It  can not  be uniformly enforced  in  both instances, for the  reason  that it was imposed in one and  left out of the other.

As for  the law, article  1598, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code,   furnishes  the principle for deciding  the present question.  "If the person  who has  to approve the work is a third person  that is, if it were so agreed his decision shall be final."   Then  if  it was not agreed that a third person had to approve the work, no third person may decide upon the fulfillment  of  the contract.

The principles  of law followed  by the lower court being correct, the  judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Torres, Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur.