ASG Law

Tag: Demurrage

  • Demurrage Recovery in the Philippines: How Subrogation Protects Payers

    Unlocking Demurrage Claims: Subrogation as Your Legal Shield

    TLDR; In Philippine law, if you’ve paid demurrage charges on behalf of a buyer due to their shipping delays, you can legally recover those costs from the buyer, even if you’re not the ship owner. This is thanks to the principle of legal subrogation, which steps you into the shoes of the original creditor.

    G.R. No. 152313, October 19, 2011

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine your business is the intermediary in a large import deal. The goods arrive, but the buyer’s delays in unloading rack up hefty demurrage charges – fees for the vessel’s extended waiting time. You, as the representative, are contractually obligated to cover these costs. Are you left footing the bill, or can you legally recover this expense from the defaulting buyer? This is the core issue addressed in the Supreme Court case of Republic Flour Mills Corporation v. Forbes Factors, Inc., a decision that clarifies the application of subrogation in demurrage claims under Philippine law.

    In this case, Forbes Factors, Inc. (Forbes), acting as an indent representative, paid demurrage charges incurred by Republic Flour Mills Corporation (RFM). When RFM refused to reimburse Forbes, the legal battle began, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court. The central legal question: Could Forbes, who was not the ship owner but had paid the demurrage, legally claim this amount from RFM?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Demurrage and Subrogation

    To understand this case, we need to grasp two key legal concepts: demurrage and subrogation.

    Demurrage, in shipping law, refers to the compensation payable to the owner of a vessel for the detention of the vessel beyond the agreed-upon time for loading or unloading cargo. Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “the sum fixed by the contract of carriage as remuneration to the ship owner for the detention of the vessel beyond the number of days allowed by the charter party.” Essentially, it’s a penalty for delays caused by the charterer or consignee in loading or unloading operations.

    Subrogation, on the other hand, is a legal doctrine of substitution. It allows a third person who pays a debt to step into the shoes of the original creditor and exercise all the rights and remedies the creditor had against the debtor. Philippine law recognizes two types of subrogation: conventional and legal.

    Conventional subrogation is based on an agreement between parties, where it’s explicitly agreed that the person paying the debt will be subrogated to the creditor’s rights. Legal subrogation, however, arises by operation of law, even without a specific agreement. Article 1302 of the Philippine Civil Code outlines instances of presumed legal subrogation:

    “Art. 1302. It is presumed that there is legal subrogation:

    (1) When a creditor pays another creditor who is preferred, even without the debtor’s knowledge;

    (2) When a third person, not interested in the obligation, pays with the express or tacit approval of the debtor;

    (3) When, even without the knowledge of the debtor, a person interested in the fulfillment of the obligation pays, without prejudice to the effects of confusion as to the latter’s share.”

    Furthermore, Article 2067 of the Civil Code, concerning guarantors, also touches upon subrogation:

    “Art. 2067. The guarantor who pays is subrogated by virtue thereof to all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor.”

    These provisions form the legal backdrop against which the Republic Flour Mills v. Forbes Factors case was decided. The crucial question was whether Forbes, by paying the demurrage, could be legally subrogated to the rights of the ship owner or Richco (the charterer) and thus recover from RFM.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: Republic Flour Mills vs. Forbes Factors

    The narrative unfolds with Forbes Factors, Inc. acting as the Philippine indent representative for Richco Rotterdam B.V., a foreign commodity corporation. This arrangement was formalized in a 1983 contract, stipulating that Forbes would handle sales in the Philippines and crucially, assume liability for Philippine buyers’ discharging obligations, including demurrage.

    In 1987, Republic Flour Mills Corporation purchased barley and soybean meal from Richco, with Forbes acting as the seller’s representative. Four separate Contracts of Sale were executed for these transactions, each referencing the charter party for demurrage rates and explicitly stating RFM’s guarantee to settle demurrage within a month of presentation.

    Upon the vessels’ arrival in the Philippines, RFM encountered delays in unloading the cargo, leading to substantial demurrage amounting to US$193,937.41. Forbes, on behalf of Richco, repeatedly demanded payment from RFM, but to no avail. Eventually, Richco debited Forbes’ account for the unpaid demurrage in October 1991, as per their representative agreement.

    Faced with RFM’s continued refusal to pay, Forbes filed a collection suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in February 1992. RFM defended by claiming the delays were due to Forbes’ inefficiency, a claim the RTC would later reject. The RTC sided with Forbes in its 1996 decision, ordering RFM to pay the demurrage, interest, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The court reasoned that RFM’s failure to provide adequate unloading facilities caused the delay and that RFM implicitly acknowledged the demurrage by contesting only the computation amount.

    RFM appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that Forbes was not the real party-in-interest, as demurrage should be paid to the ship owner, not Richco’s representative. RFM also claimed denial of due process due to a denied hearing postponement and contested the damages awarded. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, reducing the exemplary damages and attorney’s fees but upholding Forbes’ right to claim and RFM’s liability. The CA emphasized the binding nature of the Contracts of Sale.

    The case then reached the Supreme Court. RFM reiterated its arguments about Forbes not being the proper claimant for demurrage and challenged the damages and alleged denial of due process. The Supreme Court, however, firmly rejected RFM’s petition, affirming the CA’s decision and solidifying Forbes’ right to recover. The Court underscored the validity of the Contracts of Sale and RFM’s explicit agreement to pay demurrage. Crucially, the Supreme Court highlighted the principle of legal subrogation:

    “Meanwhile, respondent unequivocally established that Richco charged to it the demurrage due from petitioner. Thus, at the moment that Richco debited the account of respondent, the latter is deemed to have subrogated to the rights of the former, who in turn, paid demurrage to the ship owner. It is therefore immaterial that respondent is not the ship owner, since it has been able to prove that it has stepped into the shoes of the creditor.”

    The Court further explained the legal basis for subrogation, quoting the RTC’s decision which aptly pointed out that while demurrage is typically payable to the shipowner, contractual stipulations can modify this. In this case, Forbes stipulated on demurrage with the shipowners under the charter parties and incorporated this into the sales contracts with RFM and its agreement with Richco. When Richco debited Forbes’ account, legal subrogation occurred, making Forbes the real party-in-interest to claim against RFM.

    Regarding damages, the Supreme Court upheld the reduced exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, finding RFM’s refusal to pay, despite repeated demands and promises over five years, as warranting such awards due to their wanton and oppressive conduct. The Court also dismissed RFM’s due process claim, noting that motions for postponement are discretionary and no abuse of discretion was evident.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Key Takeaways for Businesses

    This case offers crucial lessons for businesses involved in international trade and shipping, particularly indent representatives and buyers:

    Clear Contractual Language is Paramount: The Contracts of Sale explicitly stipulated RFM’s responsibility for demurrage. Businesses must ensure their contracts clearly define responsibilities regarding demurrage and other shipping-related charges. Ambiguity can lead to costly disputes.

    Understand Subrogation in Agency Agreements: Indent representatives, like Forbes, often assume liabilities on behalf of their principals. Understanding the principle of subrogation is vital. This case confirms that if you, as an agent, are compelled to pay a debt of the buyer (like demurrage), you can legally step into the shoes of the original creditor (like the principal or ship owner) to recover those funds.

    Document Everything: Forbes successfully proved that Richco debited their account for the demurrage. Meticulous record-keeping of all transactions, demands, and payments is crucial in establishing a claim for subrogation and recovery.

    Prompt Action and Communication: While Forbes made repeated demands, RFM’s prolonged refusal to pay and lack of reasonable justification contributed to the award of damages. Prompt communication and good faith negotiations can help avoid escalation and legal battles.

    Key Lessons:

    • Draft Clear Contracts: Explicitly define demurrage responsibilities.
    • Know Your Rights (Subrogation): Understand how subrogation protects intermediaries.
    • Keep Detailed Records: Document all transactions and communications.
    • Act in Good Faith: Address issues promptly and communicate transparently.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What exactly is demurrage in shipping?

    A: Demurrage is essentially a charge imposed when a ship is delayed beyond the agreed-upon free time for loading or unloading cargo. It compensates the ship owner for the lost time and operational costs due to the delay.

    Q: Who typically pays for demurrage?

    A: Usually, the charterer (the party who hires the vessel) or the consignee (the receiver of the goods) is responsible for demurrage, depending on the terms of the charter party and the sales contract.

    Q: What is legal subrogation, and how does it differ from conventional subrogation?

    A: Legal subrogation occurs automatically by operation of law when certain conditions are met, as outlined in Article 1302 of the Civil Code. Conventional subrogation, on the other hand, requires an explicit agreement between the parties.

    Q: Can someone who is not the ship owner claim demurrage?

    A: Yes, as demonstrated in this case. Through legal subrogation, a party who pays the demurrage, even if not the ship owner, can acquire the right to claim it from the responsible party, provided they meet the legal requirements for subrogation.

    Q: What evidence is needed to prove legal subrogation?

    A: Evidence of the original obligation (e.g., contracts), proof of payment by the subrogee (the party claiming subrogation), and the legal basis for subrogation (e.g., contractual obligation to pay, as in this case) are typically required.

    Q: What are exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, and why were they awarded in this case?

    A: Exemplary damages are awarded to set an example or to punish a party for their egregious conduct. Attorney’s fees are costs for legal representation. In this case, they were awarded because RFM acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner by refusing to pay despite repeated demands and contractual obligations.

    Q: How does this case affect future demurrage claims in the Philippines?

    A: This case reinforces the principle of legal subrogation in demurrage claims, providing legal recourse for parties who are compelled to pay demurrage on behalf of others due to contractual obligations. It highlights the importance of clear contracts and the legal protections available under Philippine law.

    ASG Law specializes in Commercial and Maritime Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding Consignee Liability: When Are You Responsible for Freight Charges? – Philippine Law

    Who Pays the Piper? Consignee Liability for Freight and Handling Charges Explained

    In shipping and logistics, determining who is responsible for freight charges, especially when delays occur, can be a murky area. This case clarifies when a consignee becomes liable for these costs, even if they didn’t directly contract the initial shipment. Understanding these liabilities is crucial for businesses involved in international trade to avoid unexpected expenses and disputes.

    INTERNATIONAL FREEPORT TRADERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DANZAS INTERCONTINENTAL, INC., RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 181833, January 26, 2011

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine importing goods crucial for your business, only to be slapped with hefty charges for delays you thought were not your fault. This is a common headache for importers and consignees in the Philippines. The Supreme Court case of International Freeport Traders, Inc. v. Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. addresses this exact scenario, clarifying the often-misunderstood liabilities of a consignee for freight, demurrage, and storage fees. At the heart of this case is a simple question: Can a consignee be held responsible for charges related to the handling and storage of goods, even if they didn’t directly hire the cargo handler? The answer, as this case shows, depends heavily on the actions and agreements made by the parties involved after the shipment arrives.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Contracts of Carriage and Consignee Obligations

    Philippine law governing contracts of carriage is primarily based on the Civil Code and special laws like the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. A crucial concept is the ‘contract of carriage,’ which is an agreement where a carrier undertakes to transport goods from one place to another for a fee. This contract can be between the shipper and the carrier, but the consignee also plays a significant role, especially when it comes to taking delivery of the goods and settling freight charges.

    The Bills of Lading Act (Act No. 521) governs the issuance and effects of bills of lading, which are documents of title representing the goods. These bills of lading dictate the terms of carriage, including who is responsible for freight. Often, shipments are arranged under terms like “Freight Collect,” meaning the consignee is expected to pay the freight upon delivery. However, the exact obligations of the consignee can be complex and depend on various factors including the Incoterms used in the sales contract (like FOB, CIF, etc.) and the specific agreements made between the parties.

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that contracts are perfected by mere consent, encompassing the meeting of minds on the object and cause of the obligation. Article 1305 of the Civil Code defines a contract as “a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.” The stages of a contract are negotiation, perfection, and consummation. Perfection occurs when parties agree on essential elements, and this case hinges on whether such an agreement for services was formed between the consignee and the cargo handler after the goods arrived in Manila.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: IFTI vs. Danzas – A Timeline of Charges and Delays

    The story begins with International Freeport Traders, Inc. (IFTI) ordering Toblerone chocolates from Switzerland. The delivery term was “F.O.B. Ex-Works,” meaning IFTI was responsible for the goods from the factory gate onwards. Jacobs, the Swiss supplier, engaged Danmar Lines for shipment, who in turn used Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. (Danzas) as their agent and Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) for the actual sea transport. The house bills of lading named China Banking Corporation as the consignee and IFTI as the ‘notify party,’ stating “freight payable at destination.” The master bill of lading, however, named Danzas as the consignee, and indicated “freight prepaid” by Danmar to OOCL for an arbitrary fee meant to cover delivery to Clark, where IFTI was located.

    Upon arrival in Manila, Danzas informed IFTI. IFTI prepared the import permit, but Danzas requested the original bills of lading and a bank guarantee because China Banking was the named consignee and freight was ‘collect.’ IFTI refused the bank guarantee initially, arguing OOCL’s arbitrary fee covered everything. Danzas, in turn, withheld processing, leading to delays and the accumulation of charges.

    Here’s a breakdown of the critical events:

    • May 14, 1997: Goods arrive in Manila.
    • May 20, 1997: IFTI prepares import permit and advises Danzas to pick it up.
    • May 26, 1997: Danzas picks up import permit but requests bank guarantee and original bills of lading. IFTI refuses guarantee initially.
    • June 6, 1997: After continued delays and mounting pressure, IFTI finally provides a bank guarantee.
    • June 10, 1997: IFTI issues a promissory note to Danzas to expedite release, acknowledging potential charges but disputing liability.
    • June 13, 1997: Danzas releases goods.
    • June 16, 1997: Goods delivered to IFTI in Clark.

    Initially, Danzas agreed to charge IFTI only for electric and storage fees amounting to P56,000. However, later, Danzas demanded P181,809.45. When IFTI refused, Danzas sued. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of Danzas. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, but the Court of Appeals (CA) sided with Danzas again, finding a perfected contract of lease of service between IFTI and Danzas.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, stating, “What is clear to the Court is that, by acceding to all the documentary requirements that Danzas imposed on it, IFTI voluntarily accepted its services.” The Court highlighted IFTI’s actions – obtaining the import permit, providing the bank guarantee, and issuing a promissory note – as evidence of its consent to a separate service contract with Danzas for clearing and delivery. The Court further reasoned, “If IFTI believed that it was OOCL’s responsibility to deliver the goods at its doorsteps, then it should not have asked Danzas to pick up the import permit and submit to it the bank guarantee and promissory note that it required. IFTI should have instead addressed its demand to OOCL for the delivery of the goods.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lessons for Importers and Consignees

    This case serves as a crucial reminder for importers and consignees in the Philippines about the importance of clearly defining responsibilities and liabilities in international trade transactions. Even when initial arrangements suggest prepaid freight, actions taken upon arrival of goods can create new contractual obligations.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes that a contract can be implied through conduct. By complying with Danzas’ requests for documents and guarantees, IFTI demonstrated its acceptance of Danzas’ services, even if no formal written contract was signed specifically between them. This highlights the significance of understanding that actions often speak louder than words in contractual agreements.

    Key Lessons for Businesses:

    • Clarify Responsibilities Upfront: Ensure your sales contracts and shipping documents clearly define who is responsible for freight, handling, and associated charges, especially in “Freight Collect” arrangements. Pay close attention to Incoterms and their implications.
    • Understand Notify Party vs. Consignee: Being a “notify party” doesn’t automatically make you liable for freight if you are not the named consignee. However, your actions can change this.
    • Beware of Implied Contracts: Even without a formal agreement, your conduct in requesting services and complying with demands can create a legally binding contract.
    • Address Issues Immediately: If you believe charges are wrongly assessed or services are not as agreed, raise objections promptly and in writing. Do not simply comply with requests under protest without clearly stating your position.
    • Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all communications, agreements, and actions taken throughout the shipping process. This documentation is crucial in case of disputes.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What does “F.O.B. Ex-Works” mean?

    A: “Free On Board Ex-Works” (FOB Ex-Works) means the buyer (IFTI in this case) assumes all responsibility and costs for the goods from the seller’s (Jacobs) premises. This includes transportation, insurance, and all other charges from that point onwards.

    Q: What is a “Freight Collect” arrangement?

    A: “Freight Collect” means the freight charges are to be paid by the consignee (the receiver of the goods) at the destination, rather than by the shipper at the origin.

    Q: What is a bank guarantee in shipping?

    A: A bank guarantee in shipping is a promise from a bank to pay the carrier or cargo handler if the consignee fails to pay the freight or other charges. It is often required when the consignee’s creditworthiness is uncertain or in “Freight Collect” shipments.

    Q: If the master bill of lading and house bill of lading have different consignees, which one prevails?

    A: Generally, the house bill of lading governs the relationship between the shipper and the consignee named therein. However, the master bill of lading governs the relationship between the carrier and the party named as consignee in that document. In this case, Danzas was the consignee in the master bill, and the court considered Danzas’ actions based on its role as consignee in the master bill and its subsequent agreement with IFTI.

    Q: Can I be held liable for charges even if I believe they are excessive or incorrect?

    A: Possibly, if you act in a way that implies you are accepting responsibility for those charges, as IFTI did by providing a bank guarantee and promissory note. It’s crucial to clearly dispute charges you believe are incorrect while negotiating or taking steps to receive your goods, rather than simply complying without protest.

    Q: What should I do if I face unexpected freight charges as a consignee?

    A: First, review all shipping documents, including sales contracts and bills of lading, to understand the agreed terms. Communicate with your supplier and the shipping agent immediately to clarify the charges. If you dispute the charges, do so in writing and seek legal advice to understand your rights and obligations before taking actions that could imply acceptance of liability.

    ASG Law specializes in Corporate and Commercial Law, including shipping and logistics disputes. Let our experienced lawyers guide you. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your business navigates the complexities of international trade smoothly.

  • Demurrage in Philippine Shipping: Understanding Consignee Responsibilities and Avoiding Penalties

    Navigating Demurrage Charges: Why Consignees Must Act Promptly to Claim Cargo

    n

    TLDR: This case clarifies that consignees in the Philippines bear the responsibility to promptly claim their cargo upon arrival to avoid demurrage charges, even if goods are moved to a warehouse by the shipping line with Customs authority. Failure to do so can result in liability for demurrage, warehousing costs, and other associated expenses. Understanding bill of lading terms and acting swiftly upon cargo arrival notification are crucial for importers to prevent financial losses.

    nn

    G.R. NO. 132284, February 28, 2006

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine your business relies on timely imports of crucial materials. Suddenly, you face unexpected charges because your shipment is stuck at the port, racking up fees you didn’t anticipate. This scenario, unfortunately common in shipping, highlights the importance of understanding demurrage. Demurrage charges, penalties levied for failing to take timely delivery of cargo, can significantly impact businesses. The Supreme Court case of Telengtan Brothers & Sons, Inc. v. United States Lines, Inc. provides critical insights into these charges and the responsibilities of consignees under Philippine law. This case underscores that importers must be proactive in claiming their goods to avoid costly penalties, even when circumstances seem beyond their immediate control.

    nn

    In this case, Telengtan Brothers & Sons, Inc. (Telengtan), a cigarette factory, was sued by United States Lines, Inc. (U.S. Lines), a shipping company, for unpaid demurrage charges. Telengtan argued they shouldn’t be liable because they didn’t explicitly agree to demurrage and because U.S. Lines moved their goods to a warehouse without their direct consent. The central legal question was: Who is responsible for demurrage charges when a consignee delays cargo withdrawal, and the goods are subsequently warehoused with Customs authorization?

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: DEMURRAGE AND BILLS OF LADING IN PHILIPPINE LAW

    n

    Demurrage, in the context of shipping, is essentially a penalty for the consignee’s failure to take delivery of goods within a specified free time period. This charge compensates the shipping line for the extended use of their containers and equipment, ensuring the smooth flow of maritime commerce. Philippine law recognizes the validity of demurrage charges, primarily based on the contract between the shipper and the carrier, typically embodied in the Bill of Lading (B/L).

    nn

    Bills of Lading are crucial documents in international shipping. They serve multiple purposes: they are a receipt for goods shipped, a contract of carriage, and a document of title. The terms and conditions stipulated in the B/L govern the relationship between the carrier and the consignee, including responsibilities for cargo delivery and potential liabilities like demurrage. The Far East Conference Tariff No. 12, mentioned in the case, further exemplifies how specific tariffs can dictate the terms of carriage and demurrage applicable to shipments to the Philippines.

    nn

    Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines reinforces the contractual basis of these obligations, stating: “The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.” Demurrage clauses in Bills of Lading, when reasonable and not contrary to law or public policy, are generally upheld by Philippine courts. Previous jurisprudence has consistently affirmed the enforceability of demurrage charges when consignees fail to claim their cargo within the agreed-upon free time, as seen in cases involving shipping lines seeking to recover these costs.

    nn

    Section 17 of the Regular Long Form Inward B/L, as highlighted in the Supreme Court decision, is particularly relevant. It outlines the carrier’s rights and responsibilities regarding cargo disposal if not claimed promptly. The clause explicitly states:

    nn

    “Also if the consignee does not take possession or delivery of the goods as soon as the goods are at the disposal of the consignee for removal, the goods shall be at their own risk and expense, delivery shall be considered complete and the carrier may, subject to carrier’s liens, send the goods to store, warehouse, put them on lighters or other craft, put them in possession of authorities, dump, permit to lie where landed or otherwise dispose of them, always at the risk and expense of the goods, and the shipper and consignee shall pay and indemnify the carrier for any loss, damage, fine, charge or expense whatsoever suffered or incurred in so dealing with or disposing of the goods, or by reason of the consignee’s failure or delay in taking possession and delivery as provided herein.”

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: TELENGTAN BROTHERS & SONS, INC. VS. UNITED STATES LINES, INC.

    n

    The narrative begins with U.S. Lines filing a lawsuit against Telengtan in 1981, seeking to recover P94,000 in demurrage charges accumulated between 1979 and 1980. U.S. Lines claimed that Telengtan failed to retrieve goods from containers within the 10-day free period after their arrival in Manila. Telengtan, in their defense, denied any contractual obligation to pay demurrage and counterclaimed for damages, alleging that U.S. Lines improperly warehoused their goods and demanded excessive release fees.

    nn

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of U.S. Lines, ordering Telengtan to pay P99,408 in demurrage, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages. The RTC emphasized that Telengtan had previously paid demurrage charges, establishing a pattern of accepting this practice. The court stated:

    nn

    “[Petitioner] is, therefore, in estoppel to claim that it did not know of demurrage being charged by [respondent] and that it had not agreed to it since these exhibits show that [petitioner] knew of this demurrage and by paying for the same, it in effect, agreed to the collection of demurrage.”

    nn

    Telengtan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA reasoned that Telengtan was at fault for not withdrawing the cargo within the free period, making the warehousing necessary. The CA highlighted sound business practice:

    nn

    “Sound business practice dictates that the consignee, upon notification of the arrival of the goods, should immediately get the cargo from the carrier especially since it has need of it.”

    nn

    Undeterred, Telengtan elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in finding them at fault and in ordering a recomputation of the judgment based on Article 1250 of the Civil Code (regarding extraordinary inflation). The Supreme Court, however, sided with the lower courts on the demurrage issue. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of the CA, confirming the RTC’s decision, were binding unless reached arbitrarily. It found no such arbitrariness.

    nn

    The Supreme Court did, however, partially grant Telengtan’s petition by deleting the order for recomputation based on Article 1250. The Court held that U.S. Lines failed to prove the existence of extraordinary inflation that would justify adjusting the payment amount based on the peso’s devaluation since 1981. Thus, while Telengtan was held liable for demurrage, the amount was not subject to inflationary adjustments.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A GUIDE FOR IMPORTERS

    n

    The Telengtan case provides crucial practical lessons for businesses engaged in import and export in the Philippines. It reinforces the importance of understanding and adhering to the terms and conditions stipulated in Bills of Lading, particularly regarding demurrage and cargo delivery responsibilities.

    nn

    For importers, proactive cargo management is paramount. Upon receiving arrival notices, consignees should immediately initiate the process of cargo withdrawal. Delays, even if seemingly justified from the consignee’s perspective, can lead to demurrage liability. Communication with shipping lines and freight forwarders is key to staying informed about shipment status and any potential issues that may arise.

    nn

    Furthermore, understanding the

  • Philippine Shipping Law: Deadfreight and Demurrage Liability in Charter Parties

    Clarity is Key: Understanding Deadfreight and Demurrage in Philippine Shipping Contracts

    TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies that in shipping contracts, charterers are liable for deadfreight if they fail to load the agreed cargo quantity, even with ‘more or less’ clauses. Conversely, if a contract explicitly states ‘no demurrage,’ ship owners cannot claim demurrage for delays, even under ‘Customary Quick Dispatch’ terms. Clear, unambiguous contract terms are paramount in shipping agreements to avoid disputes.

    G.R. No. 96453, August 04, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a scenario where a ship is hired to transport goods, but the agreed cargo doesn’t fully materialize. Or picture a vessel waiting at port longer than expected due to delays. Who bears the financial burden in these situations? Philippine shipping law, particularly concerning charter parties, addresses these issues through the concepts of deadfreight and demurrage. The Supreme Court case of National Food Authority vs. Hongfil Shipping Corporation provides critical insights into how these principles are applied, emphasizing the importance of clearly defined terms in shipping contracts. This case serves as a crucial guide for businesses involved in maritime transport, highlighting the potential financial implications of imprecise agreements.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: DEADFREIGHT AND DEMURRAGE IN CHARTER PARTIES

    At the heart of this case lies the concept of a charter party, a contract where a shipowner agrees to lease a vessel to a charterer for the carriage of goods. Specifically, the case involves a ‘contract of affreightment,’ where the shipowner retains control of the vessel, and the charterer simply hires space for cargo. Two key elements often disputed in such contracts are deadfreight and demurrage.

    Deadfreight arises when a charterer fails to load the full quantity of cargo they agreed to ship. Article 680 of the Code of Commerce explicitly addresses this:

    “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.”

    This provision establishes the charterer’s responsibility to compensate the shipowner for lost freight when the agreed cargo is not fully loaded. The phrase ‘more or less’ in cargo quantity clauses is also relevant, intended to accommodate minor discrepancies, not substantial shortfalls.

    Demurrage, on the other hand, is compensation for delays in loading or unloading a vessel beyond the agreed timeframe. While not always expressly stated in contracts, Article 656 of the Code of Commerce implies its applicability:

    “Article 656. If in the charter party the time in which the loading or unloading are to take place is not stated, the usages of the port where these acts are to take place shall be observed. After the stipulated customary period has passed, and there is no express provision in the charter party fixing the indemnity for delay, the Captain shall be entitled to demand demurrage for the lay days and extra lay days which may have elapsed in loading and unloading.”

    However, the Supreme Court has clarified that liability for demurrage, in its strict sense, requires an explicit contractual stipulation. Terms like ‘Customary Quick Dispatch (CQD)’ indicate that loading and unloading should be done within a reasonable time, considering port customs and circumstances, but do not automatically equate to demurrage liability if ‘demurrage’ is expressly waived.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: NFA VS. HONGFIL SHIPPING CORPORATION

    The National Food Authority (NFA), a government agency, entered into a ‘Letter of Agreement for Vessel/Barge Hire’ with Hongfil Shipping Corporation. NFA hired Hongfil to transport approximately 200,000 bags of corn grains from Cagayan de Oro to Manila. Key terms of the agreement included:

    • Cargo: Corn grains in bags
    • Quantity: Two Hundred Thousand bags, more or less
    • Laydays: Customary Quick Dispatch (CQD)
    • Demurrage/Dispatch: None
    • Freight Rate: P7.30 per bag, total of P1,460,000.00 based on 200,000 bags

    The vessel arrived in Cagayan de Oro, and loading commenced. However, a strike by arrastre workers significantly delayed the loading process, taking 21 days instead of the estimated 7 days. Upon arrival in Manila, unloading was also delayed due to unavailability of berthing space, taking 20 days instead of the projected 12 days.

    Ultimately, only 166,798 bags of corn were unloaded in Manila, falling short of the 200,000 bags stated in the agreement. Hongfil billed NFA for both deadfreight (for the undelivered bags) and demurrage (for the loading and unloading delays). NFA refused to pay, leading Hongfil to file a case.

    The case journeyed through the courts:

    1. Regional Trial Court (RTC): Ruled in favor of Hongfil, ordering NFA to pay deadfreight and demurrage.
    2. Court of Appeals (CA): Affirmed the RTC decision but removed the award for attorney’s fees.
    3. Supreme Court (SC): Partially reversed the CA decision.

    The Supreme Court tackled three main issues:

    1. Deadfreight Liability: Was NFA liable for deadfreight?
    2. Demurrage Liability: Was NFA liable for demurrage?
    3. Personal Liability of NFA Officers: Could NFA officers be held personally liable?

    On deadfreight, the Supreme Court sided with Hongfil. The Court emphasized that the contract was for the charter of the entire vessel and for the transport of 200,000 bags of corn. The phrase ‘more or less’ was deemed to cover only minor inaccuracies, not a significant shortfall of over 33,000 bags. Quoting from the decision:

    “The words ‘more or less’ when used in relation to quantity or distance, are words of safety and caution, intended to cover some slight or unimportant inaccuracy. It allows an adjustment to the demands of circumstances which do not weaken or destroy the statements of distance and quantity when no other guides are available.”

    Therefore, NFA was held liable for deadfreight for the 33,201 bags not loaded.

    However, on demurrage, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of NFA. The Court highlighted the explicit contractual provision: ‘Demurrage/Dispatch: NONE.’ Despite the ‘Customary Quick Dispatch’ term and the delays, the clear waiver of demurrage was controlling. The Court stated:

    “Furthermore, 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 cardinal rule is that where, as in this case, the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt over the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations is controlling.”

    The Court reasoned that ‘Customary Quick Dispatch’ set a standard for reasonable time, but the ‘no demurrage’ clause acted as a waiver of any demurrage claims, even if that ‘reasonable time’ was exceeded due to circumstances not entirely attributable to NFA. The Court also absolved the NFA officers of personal liability, finding no evidence of bad faith or gross negligence on their part.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR SHIPPING CONTRACTS

    The NFA vs. Hongfil case offers several practical takeaways for businesses engaged in shipping and charter party agreements:

    Clarity in Quantity Clauses: While ‘more or less’ clauses are common, they should not be relied upon to excuse substantial deviations from the agreed cargo quantity. Charterers should aim for accurate estimations and be prepared to load close to the specified amount to avoid deadfreight liabilities.

    Explicit Demurrage Terms are Crucial: If parties intend to waive demurrage, it must be explicitly stated as ‘Demurrage: NONE’ or similar unambiguous language. Conversely, if demurrage is intended, the contract should clearly define the demurrage rate and triggering conditions. ‘Customary Quick Dispatch’ alone does not automatically imply demurrage liability, especially if waived elsewhere in the contract.

    Due Diligence, Not Absolute Insurance for Berthing: Charterers are expected to exercise due diligence in securing berthing space. However, they are not absolute insurers against all berthing delays, especially those arising from port congestion or unforeseen events beyond their direct control. ‘Customary Quick Dispatch’ considers the prevailing conditions at the port.

    Key Lessons:

    • Be Precise in Cargo Quantities: Avoid significant underloading to prevent deadfreight claims.
    • Clearly Define Demurrage: Explicitly state ‘Demurrage: NONE’ to waive it, or detail rates and conditions if intended.
    • Understand ‘Customary Quick Dispatch’: It sets a reasonable time standard but doesn’t override express demurrage waivers.
    • Document Everything: Maintain records of all communications, delays, and justifications to support your position in case of disputes.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is a Charter Party?

    A: A charter party is a contract where a shipowner leases their vessel to a charterer for the transport of goods. It defines the terms and conditions of the shipping arrangement.

    Q: What is Deadfreight?

    A: Deadfreight is the payment a charterer must make to a shipowner for failing to load the agreed-upon quantity of cargo. It compensates the shipowner for lost freight revenue.

    Q: What is Demurrage?

    A: Demurrage is compensation paid by the charterer to the shipowner for delays in loading or unloading the vessel beyond the agreed laytime. However, it must be explicitly stipulated in the contract to be claimed.

    Q: What does ‘Customary Quick Dispatch (CQD)’ mean?

    A: CQD means loading and unloading should be done as quickly as is customary at the specific port, considering typical port operations and conditions.

    Q: If a contract has ‘CQD’ but also ‘Demurrage: None,’ can the shipowner claim demurrage for delays?

    A: No. As clarified in this case, an explicit ‘Demurrage: None’ clause overrides the ‘CQD’ term regarding demurrage claims. The waiver is controlling.

    Q: How binding is the ‘more or less’ clause in cargo quantity?

    A: ‘More or less’ allows for minor variations, but not substantial deviations. Charterers are generally expected to load close to the stated quantity to avoid deadfreight.

    Q: Who is responsible for berthing space in a charter party?

    A: Generally, the charterer is responsible for ensuring berthing space is available, but they are only required to exercise due diligence, not guarantee availability under all circumstances.

    Q: What are the key elements to include in a shipping contract to avoid disputes?

    A: Clearly define cargo quantity, laytime, demurrage terms (or waiver), responsibilities for loading/unloading, and procedures for delays or unforeseen events.

    ASG Law specializes in Maritime and Commercial Law, providing expert guidance on shipping contracts and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Bill of Lading: Understanding Your Responsibilities as Consignee

    Bill of Lading: Acceptance Implies Agreement, Even Without a Signature

    TLDR: This case clarifies that accepting a bill of lading, even without signing it, implies agreement to its terms. Consignees are responsible for demurrage charges if they delay in receiving shipments, and disputes with the shipper are separate from the carrier’s rights.

    G.R. No. 116863, February 12, 1998

    Imagine a shipment of goods arriving at a port, and the intended recipient refuses to take delivery, leading to mounting storage fees. Who is responsible for these fees? This scenario highlights the importance of understanding the legal implications of a bill of lading, a document that governs the relationship between shippers, carriers, and consignees.

    The Supreme Court case of Keng Hua Paper Products Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals tackles this very issue, emphasizing that accepting a bill of lading, even without a signature, binds the consignee to its terms and conditions. This includes the responsibility for demurrage charges arising from delays in unloading the shipment.

    Legal Context: The Bill of Lading as a Contract

    A bill of lading is more than just a receipt; it’s a contract. It serves a dual purpose, as the Supreme Court emphasizes: “First, it is a receipt for the goods shipped. Second, it is a contract by which three parties, namely, the shipper, the carrier, and the consignee undertake specific responsibilities and assume stipulated obligations.”

    This contract outlines the responsibilities of each party involved in the shipping process. The shipper is responsible for providing accurate information about the goods, the carrier is responsible for transporting the goods safely, and the consignee is responsible for accepting delivery of the goods and paying any associated charges.

    The Civil Code of the Philippines also plays a crucial role in understanding contractual obligations. Article 1159 states, “Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.” This principle underscores the binding nature of the bill of lading once it is accepted by the parties involved.

    Even without a signature, acceptance of a bill of lading implies consent to its terms. As the Court noted, “(a)cceptance of a paper containing the terms of a proposed contract generally constitutes an acceptance of the contract and of all of its terms and conditions of which the acceptor has actual or constructive notice.”

    Case Breakdown: Keng Hua Paper Products vs. Sea-Land Service

    Keng Hua Paper Products Co. (Keng Hua) purchased waste paper from a shipper in Hong Kong, Ho Kee Waste Paper. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Sea-Land), a shipping company, transported the goods to Manila. Upon arrival, Keng Hua refused to accept the shipment, claiming overshipment and potential violations of Central Bank rules.

    The container sat at the port for 481 days, accruing demurrage charges of ₱67,340. Sea-Land sued Keng Hua to recover these charges. Keng Hua argued that it never explicitly accepted the bill of lading and that the overshipment justified its refusal to receive the goods.

    Here’s a breakdown of the case’s procedural journey:

    • Regional Trial Court (RTC): Ruled in favor of Sea-Land, ordering Keng Hua to pay the demurrage charges, plus interest and attorney’s fees.
    • Court of Appeals (CA): Affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto, holding that Keng Hua’s acceptance of the bill of lading, without timely objection, bound it to its terms.
    • Supreme Court (SC): Affirmed Keng Hua’s liability for demurrage but modified the interest rate and deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that Keng Hua’s prolonged inaction after receiving the bill of lading implied acceptance of its terms. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals: “After accepting the bill of lading, receiving notices of arrival of the shipment, failing to object thereto, (herein petitioner) cannot now deny that it is bound by the terms in the bill of lading.”

    Furthermore, the Court stated, “Mere apprehension of violating said laws, without a clear demonstration that taking delivery of the shipment has become legally impossible, cannot defeat the petitioner’s contractual obligation and liability under the bill of lading.”

    Practical Implications: What This Means for Businesses

    This case provides valuable lessons for businesses involved in international trade. It underscores the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding the terms of a bill of lading before accepting it. Failure to do so can result in unexpected liabilities, such as demurrage charges.

    Disputes regarding the quantity or quality of goods should be resolved directly with the shipper, separate from the carrier’s contractual rights under the bill of lading. Consignees cannot simply refuse to accept shipments based on alleged discrepancies without facing potential financial consequences.

    Key Lessons:

    • Acceptance Implies Agreement: Even without a signature, accepting a bill of lading implies agreement to its terms.
    • Timely Objection is Crucial: Object to any unfavorable terms in the bill of lading immediately upon receipt.
    • Separate Disputes: Resolve disputes with the shipper separately from your obligations to the carrier under the bill of lading.
    • Legal Impossibility: Only a clear demonstration of legal impossibility can excuse you from your obligations under the bill of lading.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is a bill of lading?

    A: A bill of lading is a document that serves as a receipt for goods shipped, a contract of carriage, and a document of title.

    Q: Am I bound by a bill of lading if I didn’t sign it?

    A: Yes, acceptance of a bill of lading, even without signing it, implies agreement to its terms.

    Q: What are demurrage charges?

    A: Demurrage charges are fees assessed for delays in unloading a shipment from a carrier’s container or vessel beyond the allowed free time.

    Q: What if there’s a discrepancy between the goods I ordered and the goods described in the bill of lading?

    A: You should address this discrepancy with the shipper. Your obligation to the carrier under the bill of lading remains separate.

    Q: Can I refuse to accept a shipment if I suspect it violates customs laws?

    A: Only if you can demonstrate that accepting the shipment would result in a clear violation of customs laws.

    Q: What should I do if I receive a bill of lading with unfavorable terms?

    A: Object to the terms immediately in writing and attempt to negotiate a modification with the carrier.

    Q: How does a letter of credit affect my obligations under a bill of lading?

    A: A letter of credit is a separate transaction between the buyer and the issuing bank. It does not affect your obligations to the carrier under the bill of lading.

    Q: What is “Shipper’s Load and Count”?

    A: Under this arrangement, the shipper is responsible for loading the container and providing an accurate count of the goods. The carrier is not responsible for verifying the contents.

    ASG Law specializes in maritime law and international trade. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.