Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 175 views

    36 ADR Shipping v. Gallardo

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    1) Marcelino Gallardo hired ADR Shipping to transport 60,000 cubic meters of logs to Taiwan using the MV Pacific Breeze, with loading to begin on February 5, 1988. 2) When the ship did not arrive on time on February 5th, Gallardo cancelled the agreement and demanded return of the deposit, which ADR refused. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings in favor of Gallardo, finding that the contract stipulated Gallardo could cancel if the ship did not arrive on February 5th, which it did not, so ADR's interpretation was untenable and cancellation was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    36 ADR Shipping v. Gallardo

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    175 views1 page
    1) Marcelino Gallardo hired ADR Shipping to transport 60,000 cubic meters of logs to Taiwan using the MV Pacific Breeze, with loading to begin on February 5, 1988. 2) When the ship did not arrive on time on February 5th, Gallardo cancelled the agreement and demanded return of the deposit, which ADR refused. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings in favor of Gallardo, finding that the contract stipulated Gallardo could cancel if the ship did not arrive on February 5th, which it did not, so ADR's interpretation was untenable and cancellation was valid.

    Original Description:

    adr

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Marcelino Gallardo hired ADR Shipping to transport 60,000 cubic meters of logs to Taiwan using the MV Pacific Breeze, with loading to begin on February 5, 1988. 2) When the ship did not arrive on time on February 5th, Gallardo cancelled the agreement and demanded return of the deposit, which ADR refused. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings in favor of Gallardo, finding that the contract stipulated Gallardo could cancel if the ship did not arrive on February 5th, which it did not, so ADR's interpretation was untenable and cancellation was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    175 views1 page

    36 ADR Shipping v. Gallardo

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    1) Marcelino Gallardo hired ADR Shipping to transport 60,000 cubic meters of logs to Taiwan using the MV Pacific Breeze, with loading to begin on February 5, 1988. 2) When the ship did not arrive on time on February 5th, Gallardo cancelled the agreement and demanded return of the deposit, which ADR refused. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings in favor of Gallardo, finding that the contract stipulated Gallardo could cancel if the ship did not arrive on February 5th, which it did not, so ADR's interpretation was untenable and cancellation was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ADR Shipping v.

    Marcelino Gallardo and Court of Appeals


    G.R. No. 134873 September 17, 2002

    QUISUMBING, J.:

    Facts:
    Marcelino Gallardo is engaged in the business of timber concessionaire and in one
    transaction, it has engaged the services of ADR Shipping to charter the MV Pacific Breeze to
    deliver 60, 000 cubic meters of log to Taiwan. This is relation to a prior contract of sale of the
    logs with Gallardo as seller and Stywood Philippines, Inc. Under the agreement, it was stipulated
    the the MV Pacific Breeze would be ready to be loaded with the cargo on February 5, 1988.
    Another stipulation to that effect states that should the vessel fail to be ready for loading on or
    before the agreed date, and demand for the same was made at least 48 hours from the agreed
    loading time, then the contractors may opt for the cancellation of the contract. Another
    stipulation states that should the services not be executed on February 16, 1988, then the
    agreement is likewise cancelled.

    On the day of the loading, the boat did not arrive on time and on that same day, Gallardo
    notified ADR shipping his intent to cancel the agreement and demanded that the deposit amount
    of 242,000 PHP be returned. ADR soon refused to return the amount which lead to an action for
    collection of sum of money instituted by Gallardo against, ADR. The Regional Trial Court ruled
    in favor of Gallardo and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

    In this petition, ADR asserts that the date February 5, 1988 is the commencement of the
    reckoning period for the cancellation of the agreement in case of delay, and that the February
    16, 1988 is the true cancellation date of the agreement. Further, it adds that February 5, 1988 is
    not the exact date of arrival of the MV Pacific Breeze in the port for loading.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the interpretation of ADR shipping of the stipulation in the agreement
    regarding the cancellation of the contracts are correct

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of ADR Shipping is untenable and this
    petition lacks merit. It held that when the stipulations in the contract are cleat and there is no
    room for interpretation, there is no other recourse than to resort to the literal interpretation of the
    contract.

    The stipulation of the charter agreement is clear; first is that there is an express agreement
    that the vessel shall be ready for loading on February 5, 1988; second, that in case the vessel fails
    to arrive on the day the loading is to be made, then the contractor, herein Gallardo, may opt for
    the cancellation of the contract. There is no other logical way this concurrence of the stipulation
    should be interpreted; the vessel arrived late on February 5, 1988, and thus, Gallardo had the
    right to cancel the agreement as per the stipulation. ADRs assertion of its own interpretation of
    the stipulation is untenable.

    You might also like