National Food Authority vs. Court of Appeals. 311 SCRA 700

National Food Authority vs. Court of Appeals.
311 SCRA 700

Facts:
National Food Authority, thru its officers, entered into a "Letter of Agreement for
Vessel/Barge Hire" with Hongfil Shipping Corporation for the shipment of 200,000 bags of corn
grains from Cagayan de Oro City to Manila. Among its pertinent provisions are as follows:
“3. Quantity: Two Hundred Thousand bags, more or less
7. Demurrage/Dispatch: None”
NFA sent Hongfil a Letter of Advice that its vessel should proceed to Cagayan de Oro
City. When M/V DIANE/CHARLIE of Hongfil arrived in Cagayan de Oro City, a certification of
charging rate was then issued by the arrastre firm in Cagayan de Oro City, which certified that it
would take them seven (7) days, eight (8) hours and forty-three (43) minutes to load the
200,000 bags of NFA corn grains. As there was a strike staged by the arrastre workers and in
view of the refusal of the striking stevedores to attend to their work, the loading of said corn
grains took twenty-one (21) days, fifteen hours (15) and eighteen (18) minutes to finish.
The NFA Provincial Manager allowed MV CHARLIE/DIANE to depart for the Port of
Manila. When the vessel arrived at the Port of Manila, a certification of discharging rate was
issued stating that it would take twelve (12) days, six (6) hours and twenty-two (22) minutes to
discharge the 200,000 bags of corn grains. Unfortunately, it took a total period of twenty (20)
days, fourteen (14) hours and thirty-three (33) minutes to finish the unloading, due to the
unavailability of a berthing space for M/V CHARLIE/DIANE.
After the discharging was completed, NFA paid Hongfil the amount of P1,006,972.11
covering the shipment of corn grains. Thereafter, Hongfil sent its billing to NFA, claiming
payment for freight covering the shut-out load or deadfreight as well as demurrage, allegedly
sustained during the loading and unloading of subject shipment of corn grains. When NFA
refused to pay the amount reflected in the billing, Hongfil brought an action against NFA and its
officers for recovery of deadfreight and demurrage.
Issue:
Can NFA be held liable for deadfreight and demurrage?
Ruling:
No. NFA cannot be held liable for deadfreight and demurrage.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under the law, the cargo not loaded is considered as deadfreight. It is the amount paid
by or recoverable from a charterer of a ship for the portion of the ship's capacity the latter
contracted for but failed to occupy.8 Explicit and succinct is the law that the liability for
deadfreight is on the charterer. The law in point is Article 680 of the Code of Commerce, which
provides:
Art. 680. A charterer who does not complete the full cargo he bound himself to
ship shall pay the freightage of the amount he fails to ship, if the captain does not
take other freight to complete the load of the vessel, in which case the first
charterer shall pay the difference, should there be any.
While the Letter of Agreement stipulated that the quantity is “Two Hundred Thousand
bags, more or less,” it is further disclosed by the evidence that there was a communication from
NFA Administrator to the Manager of Hongfil Shipping Corporation, stating clearly that the
vessel M/V CHARLIE/DIANE was chartered to "load our 200,000 bags corn grains from
Cagayan de Oro to Manila at P7.30 per 50 kg./bag." Therefrom, it can be gleaned unerringly
that the charter party was to transport 200,000 bags of corn grains.
It is thus decisively clear that the letter of agreement covered 200,000 bags of corn
grains but only 166,798 bags were unloaded at the Port of Manila. Consequently, shut-out load
or deadfreight of 33,201 bags at P7.30 per bag or P242,367.30 should be paid by NFA to
Hongfil Shipping Corporation.
As to the issue of whether NFA maybe held liable for demurrage, considering that
subject contract of affreightment contains an express provision "Demurrage/Dispatch: NONE,"
the same left the parties with no other recourse but to apply the literal meaning of such
stipulation. The provision "Demurrage/Dispatch: NONE" can be interpreted as a waiver by
Hongfil of the right to claim for demurrages.

National Food Authority vs. Court of Appeals. 311 SCRA 700

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Food Authority vs. Court of Appeals. 311 SCRA 700

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Food Authority vs. Court of Appeals. 311 SCRA 700

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Food Authority vs. Court of Appeals.

311 SCRA 700

You might also like