Case Summary (G.R. No. 178008)
Applicable Law
The relevant constitutional provision guiding this case is the Civil Code concerning obligations and contracts, as the dispute pertains to breach of contract, delivery obligations, and damages.
Overview of Contracts
Cargill and San Fernando entered into two contracts: Contract 5026 for the sale of 4,000 metric tons (mt) of molasses to be delivered between April and May 1997 at a price of P3,950.00 per mt, and Contract 5047 for 5,000 mt at P2,750.00 per mt, with a delivery period in the fourth quarter of 1996.
Allegations and Breach of Contract
Cargill claimed it offered to deliver the agreed amounts, but San Fernando only accepted 951 mt under Contract 5026 and refused further deliveries, asserting that its failure was due to full storage at Ajinomoto's facility. Cargill, as a result, incurred significant losses, including demurrage and unrealized profits, prompting them to file a complaint on March 2, 1998, seeking damages.
Trial Court's Findings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially sided with San Fernando, dismissing Cargill's claims and awarding substantial damages to San Fernando, asserting that Cargill failed its delivery obligations under both contracts, thereby causing San Fernando to default on its obligations to Ajinomoto.
Court of Appeals' Analysis
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that while Cargill had not breached Contract 5026 entirely (having made an initial delivery of 951 mt), it had failed to fulfill the remaining obligations, accepting that San Fernando's refusal to accept further delivery warranted demurrage reimbursement. Conversely, for Contract 5047, the CA found Cargill in breach, resulting in the award of unrealized profits to San Fernando.
Judicial Findings on Key Issues
The CA's decision outlined that:
- Cargill was partially liable for Contract 5026 due to its failure to provide the total agreed amount, which was deemed a breach. However, since San Fernando refused to accept the April delivery, it owed Cargill for demurrage incurred.
- Cargill was fully liable for breaching Contract 5047 by failing to make any deliveries during the stipulated time, thus liable for the full expected profits.
Denial of Additional Damages
The CA deleted awards for moral and exemplary damages, as San Fernando could not substantiate claims of bad faith or reputational harm against Cargill. Similarly, awards for attorney&#
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 178008)
Background of the Case
- The case involves two parties: San Fernando Regala Trading, Inc. (San Fernando) and Cargill Philippines, Inc. (Cargill), both engaged in the trading of cane molasses.
- The controversy began when San Fernando accused Cargill of failing to fulfill its contractual obligations to deliver molasses, while Cargill contended that San Fernando had refused to accept the deliveries.
- Cargill filed a complaint for damages and a sum of money against San Fernando in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City on March 2, 1998.
Contractual Agreements
- Cargill and San Fernando entered into two contracts:
- Contract 5026: Sale of 4,000 metric tons (mt) of molasses at P3,950.00 per mt with a delivery period of April to May 1997.
- Contract 5047: Sale of 5,000 mt of molasses at P2,750.00 per mt with a delivery period of October to December 1996.
- Cargill's delivery was contingent upon the conditions set forth in these contracts, and the nature of the agreements involved risk-taking forward sales.
Sequence of Events
- Cargill attempted to deliver the molasses as stipulated in Contract 5026 but San Fernando accepted only 951 mt and refused the remaining quantity.
- On April 2, 1997, a barge carrying 1,174 mt of molasses arrived at the Ajinomoto wharf, but San Fernando did not accept the delivery, leading to a demurrage charge of P920,000.00 for Cargill due to the barge being stranded for 71 days.
- Cargill also faced losses amounting to P3,480,000.00 due to having to sell the molasses to another buyer at a reduced price.
- Regarding Contract 5047, Cargill sought to deliver the molasses but San Fernando did not accept the deliveries during the agreed timeframe.
Arguments Presented
- Cargill