Title
Aerospace Chemical Industries, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 108129
Decision Date
Sep 23, 1999
Aerospace failed to timely lift sulfuric acid due to chartering an unseaworthy vessel, causing delays. Court ruled Aerospace liable for storage costs, offset against advance payment, affirming breach of contract and negligence.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108129)

Petitioner

Aerospace purchased 500 metric tons (MT) of 98–99% sulfuric acid in bulk (100 MT Ex-Basay, 400 MT Ex-Sangi) and agreed to pay in Philippine currency five days prior to shipment; the buyer was to arrange transport to lift the cargo from the seller’s designated loadports.

Respondent

Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. (Philphos) supplied sulfuric acid at specified FOB loadports, issued routine advisories and demands regarding withdrawal, and claimed incremental storage and maintenance costs arising from delayed lifting.

Key Dates and Contract Terms

  • Contract confirmed June 27, 1986 (letter-form): 500 MT (100 MT Basay, 400 MT Sangi); prices US$50/MT (Basay) and US$54/MT (Sangi); payment in PHP five days prior to shipment; buyer to secure transport; laycan July (approximate).
  • August 6, 1986: seller advisory re P2,000/day incremental expense for delay.
  • October 3, 1986: buyer paid P553,280.00 for 500 MT.
  • December 12, 1986: seller’s letter demanding withdrawal and warning to vacate Basay by December 15, 1986 or charge storage and consequential costs.

Payment, Demands, and Subsequent Communications

Petitioner paid in full on October 3, 1986. Seller repeatedly notified petitioner about incremental costs for delayed withdrawal (Aug. 6 advisory; Dec. 12 categorical demand). Petitioner thereafter sent letters (Jan. 26, 1987; Mar. 20, 1987; May 15, 1987; July 6, 1988) requesting replacement or additional quantities after loading failures and a sinking. Seller’s July 22, 1988 reply refused lifting ex-Isabel due to pyrite limitation and delayed imports. Counsel’s demand for delivery or refund was sent Jan. 25, 1988; seller replied Mar. 8, 1988 insisting on lifting the remaining 30 MT at Basay or payment of maintenance and storage commencing Aug. 1, 1986.

Initial Shipment Attempts and Vessel Problems

Petitioner chartered M/T Sultan Kayumanggi (Nov. 19, 1986): only 70.009 MT withdrawn at Basay due to heavy listing; repairs attempted; at Sangi (Dec. 18, 1986) only 157.51 MT withdrawn; the vessel later sank with 227.51 MT on board. SGS survey reports (Dec. 17, 1986; Jan. 2, 1987) and attending surveyor Eugenio Rabea’s incident report documented listing, pump failures, tank explosion/repair attempts, and instability; weather at Basay was reported as fair.

Petitioner’s Efforts to Replace Lost Cargo

After the sinking, petitioner chartered M/T Don Victor (capacity ~500 MT) and repeatedly requested an additional 227.51 MT to complete the vessel’s capacity so it could lift the remaining 272.49 MT. Petitioner alleged that seller’s personnel encouraged full-capacity loading; seller denied a binding agreement to supply the additional quantity and invoked supply limitations.

Trial Court Judgment

Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and/or damages (May 4, 1989). The Regional Trial Court found for petitioner, concluding that the sinking was force majeure and absolved petitioner from the obligation to lift the remaining cargo. Trial court awarded: P306,060.77 (value of 272.49 MT), P91,818.23 (unrealized profits), exemplary damages P30,000, and attorney’s fees P30,000 (all with 12% interest from applicable dates). Defendant’s counterclaims were dismissed.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed. It held petitioner guilty of delay and negligence for failing to lift the full 500 MT by the agreed time and for not immediately replacing the unseaworthy vessel. The CA found no basis to treat the vessel’s sinking as force majeure relieving plaintiff. The CA dismissed petitioner’s complaint and granted seller’s counterclaim for maintenance and tank rental charges (computing P324,516.63), finding the seller entitled to damages for the buyer’s delay.

Issues on Review to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court distilled the contested points: whether petitioner breached the contract despite payment and partial delivery; whether alleged subsequent acceptance of an additional 227.51 MT constituted waiver of prior delay; whether the CA erred in awarding damages (including reliance on a photocopy of an alleged agreement); and whether storage/preservation costs for fungible goods should be borne by seller under Article 1504 of the Civil Code.

Standard of Review and Weight of Factual Findings

The Court acknowledged that where CA findings conflict with trial court findings it may review the facts, but it found the CA’s conclusions supported by preponderant evidence. The independent SGS survey and the attending surveyor’s reports were credited over petitioner’s employee testimony regarding the cause of the vessel’s sinking and the weather conditions. Those reports showed the vessel was unseaworthy and unstable; sinking was attributable to vessel defects, not an unforeseeable force majeure event.

Parol Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Alleged Contract Modification

Petitioner’s claim that seller’s shipping officer verbally recommended ordering an additional 227.51 MT was unproven and insufficient to alter the written contract. The Court reiterated the rule that oral agreements intended to vary a written contract must be proven clearly and that the parol evidence rule bars using unproven verbal statements to modify written terms. The Court therefore rejected petitioner’s contention that an alleged verbal modification excused its refusal to lift the remaining contracted quantity.

Determination of Delay and Its Commencement

The Court held that seller’s December 12, 1986 letter constituted a categorical extrajudicial demand to lift the cargo and to vacate Basay by December 15, 1986; the Aug. 6, 1986 advisory did not suffice as a categorical demand. Given the December 12 demand and a reasonable transit allowance (three days), the Court fixed December 15, 1986 as the proper commencement date for computing delay-related liability. Expenses incurred by seller before December 15, 1986 were ordinary business expenses for which petitioner was not liable.

Liability for Storage and Preservation (Article 1504 Exception)

Petitioner invoked Article 1504 (fungible goods rule that seller bears preservation risk until ownership transfer), but the Court applied Article 1504’s exception: when actual delivery is delayed through the buyer’s fault, the goods are at the risk of the defaulting party. Because peti

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.