Case Digest (G.R. No. 134873)
Facts:
ADR Shipping Services, Inc. v. Marcelino Gallardo and the Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134873, September 17, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Marcelino Gallardo (doing business as Mar Gallardo Trading) entered into a Charter Party with ADR Shipping Services, Inc., through its president Abraham Rodriguez, for the carriage of 6,500–7,000 CBM (minimum/maximum) of falcata logs aboard the MV Pacific Breeze, with the vessel expected ready to load on February 5, 1988; Gallardo paid an advance charter fee of P242,000 (10%), evidenced by two official receipts. The Charter Party contained printed clauses (Gencon form) including a cancelling clause in paragraph 10 and various Box entries (Box 9 indicating Feb. 5 as expected readiness and Box 19 indicating a cancelling date of Feb. 16).
The MV Pacific Breeze failed to arrive on the expected date. On February 5, 1988 Gallardo sent ADR a written notice cancelling the charter and demanding return of the P242,000 advance. ADR refused to refund the deposit; Gallardo filed suit for sum of money and damages as Civil Case No. 88-43931 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 50.
After trial the RTC rendered judgment ordering ADR to pay Gallardo P242,000 with 6% interest per annum from filing, P20,000 attorneys’ fees, and costs. ADR appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in CA-G.R. CV No. 47556 affirmed the RTC in a decision dated October 9, 1996; ADR’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on July 29, 1998.
ADR brought the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition seeking to reverse the CA decision, assigning errors that: (1) Gallardo was not entitled to refund the P242,000; (2) Gallardo knew of and consented to an alleged agreement by which Stywood Philippines, Inc. would take over the Charter Party; (3) there was novation/substitution effected by Stywood’s alleged takeover; and (4) even absent novation, Gallardo allegedly cancelled before the applicable cancelling date and so was not entitled to refund. ADR relied on an alleged February 11, 1988 “take-over” agreement (Exhibit 3) and a subsequent charter between ADR and Stywood for a different vessel (MV Adhiguna Dharma) to support its position that the deposit was properly applied.
Both the RTC and the CA found Exhibit 3 not genuine and insufficient to prove that Gallardo authorized Stywood to take over the Feb. 5 charter: Exhibit 3 was not notarized, undated, bo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is private respondent Marcelino Gallardo entitled to a refund of P242,000 (plus interest and attorneys’ fees) after cancelling the Charter Party because the vessel failed to arrive as expected?
- Did the alleged take-over agreement and the subsequent Charter Party between ADR and Stywood effect a valid novation or substitution that extinguished Gallardo’s claim and ma...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)