Case Digest (G.R. No. 134873)
Facts:
The case involves ADR Shipping Services, Inc. as the petitioner and Marcelino Gallardo, a timber concessionaire and log dealer operating under the name Mar Gallardo Trading, as the respondent. The events leading to the case began when Gallardo entered into a charter agreement with ADR Shipping Services for the use of the MV Pacific Breeze to transport 60,000 cubic meters of logs to Kaoshung, Taiwan. This transaction was part of a sales agreement between Gallardo and Stywood Philippines, Inc. Gallardo paid an advance charter fee of P242,000, which represented ten percent of the total charter fee, as evidenced by two official receipts issued by ADR. The charter agreement stipulated that the vessel should be ready to load by February 5, 1988. However, the MV Pacific Breeze did not arrive on time, prompting Gallardo to send a letter on February 5, 1988, to ADR, indicating his intention to cancel the charter contract due to the failure of Stywood to fulfill its commitment. Gallard...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 134873)
Facts:
- Parties Involved: Marcelino Gallardo, a timber concessionaire and log dealer operating as "Mar Gallardo Trading," entered into a charter agreement with ADR Shipping Services, Inc. (ADR) for the use of the MV Pacific Breeze to transport logs to Kaoshung, Taiwan.
- Agreement Details: Gallardo paid an advance charter fee of P242,000, which was 10% of the agreed charter fee. The MV Pacific Breeze was supposed to be ready to load by February 5, 1988.
- Breach of Contract: The vessel failed to arrive by the agreed date, prompting Gallardo to cancel the contract and demand a refund of the advance payment.
- Legal Action: Due to ADR's refusal to return the advance payment, Gallardo filed a case for sum of money and damages, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in his favor, ordering ADR to refund the P242,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees.
- Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading ADR to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Contractual Obligations: ADR failed to fulfill its obligation to have the MV Pacific Breeze ready to load by February 5, 1988, as stipulated in the agreement.
- Ambiguity in Contract: Ambiguous terms in the charter agreement, specifically the "cancelling clause," were interpreted strictly against ADR, the drafter of the contract.
- No Consent to Takeover: The alleged takeover agreement by Stywood was not proven to be genuine or executed with Gallardo’s consent.
- No Novation: The February 11, 1988 charter agreement between ADR and Stywood did not constitute a novation of the original agreement with Gallardo.
- Damages and Interest: Gallardo was entitled to recover the advance payment with legal interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint, as the amount arose from a contract of affreightment, not a loan or forbearance of money.
- Attorney’s Fees: The award of P20,000 as attorney’s fees was justified since Gallardo was compelled to litigate to protect his interests.