SECOND DIVISION
CRESCENT PETROLEUM, LTD., G.R. No. 155014 Petitioner, Present: Puno, J ., ., !ersus C"#ir$#n, %ustri#M#rtine&, C#''e(o, Sr., Tin)#, #n* + C"ioN#&#rio, JJ . M-V LO M%/ES/%RI, T/E S/IPPING CORPOR%TION O INDI%, #n* PORTSERV LIMITED Pro$u')#te*: #n*-or TR%NSM%R S/IPPING, INC., Res2on*ents. No!e$3er 11, 005 DECISION PUNO, J .: .: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks the (a) reversal of the November 28, 2! "ecision of the #ourt of $ppeals in #$%&'R' No' #%542, 617 which dismissed for want of *urisdiction the instant case, and the +eptember +eptember , 22 Resolution Resolution of the same appellate court,67 which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, and (b) reinstatement of the -ul. 25, !/ "ecision 687 of the Re0ional Trial #ourt (RT#) in #ivil #ase No' #1%!8/3, which held that respondents were solidaril. liable to pa. petitioner the sum pra.ed for in the complaint' The facts are as follows Respondent 6 7ok aheshwari (essel) is an ocean0oin0 vessel of ndian re0istr. that is owned b. respondent +hippin0 #orporation of ndia (+#), a corporation or0ani9ed and e:istin0 under the laws of ndia and principall. owned b. the &overnment of ndia' t was time%chartered b. respondent +# to ;alla erchant arine #o' 7td' (;alla), a +outh
n or about November !, !5, =ortserv re?uested petitioner #rescent =etroleum, 7td' (#rescent), a corporation or0ani9ed or0ani9ed and e:istin0 under the laws of #anada that is en0a0ed in the business business of sellin0 petroleum petroleum and oil products products for the use and operation of ocean0oin0 vessels, to deliver marine fuel oils (bunker fuels) to the essel' =etitioner #rescent 0ranted and confirmed the re?uest throu0h an advice via facsimile dated November 2, !5' $s securit. for the pa.ment of the bunker fuels and related services, petitioner #rescent received two (2) checks in the amounts of @+A!,' and @+A2,'' Thus, petitioner #rescent contracted with its supplier, arine =etrobulk 7imited (arine =etrobulk), another #anadian corporation, for the ph.sical deliver. of the bunker fuels to the essel' >n or about November 4, !5, arine =etrobulk =etrobulk delivered the bunker fuels amountin0 to @+A!,544 inclusive inclusive of bar0in0 and demurra0e char0es to the essel essel at the port of =ioneer &rain, ancouver, ancouver, #anada' The #hief 1n0ineer >fficer of the essel dul. acknowled0ed and received the deliver. receipt' arine =etrobulk issued an invoice to petitioner #rescent for the @+A!!,4' worth of the bunker fuels' =etitioner #rescent issued a check for the same amount in favor of arine =etrobulk, which check was dul. encashed' ;avin0 paid arine =etrobulk, petitioner #rescent issued a revised invoice dated November 2!, !5 to =ortserv 7imited, and6or the aster, and6or >wners, and6or >perators, and6or #harterers of 6 7ok aheshwari in the amount of @+A!,544' with instruction to remit the amount on or before "ecember !, !5' The period lapsed and several demands were made but no pa.ment was received' $lso, the checks issued to petitioner #rescent as securit. for the pa.ment of the bunker fuels were di shonored for insufficienc. of funds' $s a conse?uence, petitioner #rescent incurred additional e:penses of @+A8,532'/! for interest, trackin0 fees, and le0al fees'
>n a. 2, !/, while the essel was docked at the port of #ebu #it., petitioner #rescent instituted before the RT# of #ebu #it. an action for a sum of mone. with pra.er for temporar. restrainin0 order and writ of preliminar. attachment a0ainst respondents essel and +#, =ortserv and6or Transmar' The case was raffled to ranch ! and docketed as #ivil #ase No' #1%!8/3' >n a. , !/, the trial court issued a writ of attachment a0ainst the essel essel with bond at =2,3!,' =2,3!,'' ' =etitioner
#rescent withdrew its pra.er for a temporar. restrainin0 order and posted the re?uired bond' >n a. !8, !/, summonses were served to respondents essel and +#, and =ortserv and6or Transmar throu0h the aster of the essel' >n a. 28, !/, respondents essel and +#, throu0h =ioneer nsurance and +uret. #orporation (=ioneer), filed an ur0ent e:%parte motion to approve =ioneers letter of undertakin0, to consider it as counter%bond and to dischar0e the attachment' >n a. 2, !/, the trial court 0ranted the motionB thus, the letter of undertakin0 was approved as counter%bond to dischar0e the attachment' Cor failin0 to file their respective answers and upon motion of petitioner #rescent, the trial court declared respondents essel and +#, =ortserv and6or Transmar in default' =etitioner #rescent was allowed to present its evidence e:%parte' >n -ul. 25, !/, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of petitioner #rescent, thus D;1R1C>R1, premises considered, *ud0ment is hereb. rendered in favor of plaintiff E#rescentF and a0ainst the defendants Eessel, +#, =ortserv and6or TransmarF' #onse?uentl., the latter are hereb. ordered to pa. plaintiff *ointl. and solidaril., the followin0 (a) the sum of @+A!,544', representin0 the outstandin0 obli0ationB (b) interest of @+A!,38'5 as of -ul. , !/, plus additional interest at !8G per annum for the period thereafter, until the principal account is full. paidB (c) attorne.s fees of =,'B and (d) =2,' as liti0ation e:penses' +> >R"1R1"' >n $u0ust !, !/, respondents essel and +# appealed to the #ourt of $ppeals' The. attached copies of the charter parties between respondent +# and ;alla, between ;alla and Transmar, and between Transmar a nd =ortserv' The. pointed out that =ortserv was a time charterer a nd that there is a clause in the time charters between responden t +# and ;alla, and between ;alla and Transmar, which states that the #harterers shall provide and pa. for all the fuel e:cept as otherwise a0reed' The. submitted a cop. of =art of the unker Cuel $0reement between petitioner #rescent and =ortserv containin0 a stipulation that New Hork law 0overns the construction, validit. and performance of the contract' The. likewise submitted certified copies of the #ommercial nstruments and aritime 7ien $ct of the @nited +tates (@'+'), some @'+' cases, and some #anadian cases to support their defense' >n November 28, 2!, the #ourt of $ppeals issued its assailed "ecision, which reversed that of the trial court, viz D;1R1C>R1, premises considered, the "ecision dated -ul. 25, !/, issued b. the Re0ional Trial #ourt of #ebu #it., ranch !, is hereb. R11R+1" and +1T $+"1, and a new one is entered "+++N& the instant case for want of *urisdiction' The appellate court denied petitioner #rescents motion for reconsideration e:plainin0 that it dismissed the instant action primaril. on the 0round of forum non conveniens considerin0 that the parties are forei0n corporations which are not doin0 business in the =hilippines' ;ence, this petition submittin0 the followin0 issues for resolution, viz !' =hilippine courts have *urisdiction over a forei0n vessel found inside =hilippine waters for the enforcement of a maritime lien a0ainst said vessel and6or its owners and operatorsB 2'
The principle of forum non conveniens is inapplicable to the instant caseB
' The trial court ac?uired *urisdiction over the sub*ect matter of the instant case, as well as over the res and over the persons of the partiesB 4' The enforcement of a maritime lien on the sub*ect vessel is e:pressl. 0ranted b. law' The +hip ort0a0e $cts as well as the #ode of #ommerce provides for relief to petitioner for its unpaid claimB 5' The arbitration clause in the contract was not ri0id or infle:ible but e:pressl. allowed petitioner to enforce its maritime lien in =hilippine courts provided the vessel was in the =hilippinesB /' The law of the state of New Hork is inapplicable to the present controvers. as the same has not been properl. pleaded and provedB 3' =etitioner has le0al capacit. to sue before =hilippine courts as it is suin0 upon an isolated business transactionB 8' Respondents were dul. served summons althou0h service of summons upon respondents is not a *urisdictional re?uire ment, the action bein0 a suit quasi in remB
'
The trial courts decision has factual and le0al basesB and,
!'
The respondents should be held *ointl. and solidaril. liable'
n a nutshell, this case is for the satisfaction of unpaid supplies furnished b. a forei0n supplier in a forei0n port to a vessel of forei0n re0istr. that is owned, chartered and sub%chartered b. forei0n entities' @nder atas =ambansa ilan0 !2, as amended b. Republic $ct No' 3/!, RT#s e:ercise e:clusive ori0inal *urisdiction (i )n all act ions in admiralt . and maritime where the de mand or claim e:ceeds two h undred thousand pesos (=2,) or in etro anila, where such demand or claim e:ceeds four hundred thousand pesos (=4,)' Two (2) tests have been used to determine whether a case involvin0 a contract comes within the admiralt. and maritime *urisdiction of a court % the 'o#tion#' test and the su3(et $#tter test' The 1n0lish rule follows the locational test wherein maritime and admiralt. *urisdiction, with a few e:ceptions, is e:ercised onl. on contracts made upon the sea and to be e:ecuted thereon' This is totall. re*ected under the $merican rule where the criterion in determinin0 whether a contract is maritime depends on the nature and sub*ect matter of the contract, havin0 reference to maritime service and transactions'647 n Intern#tion#' /#r!ester Co$2#n9 o t"e P"i'i22ines !. %r#)on ,657 we adopted the $merican rule and held that (w)hether or not a contract is maritime depends not on the place where the contract is made and is to be e:ecuted, makin0 the localit. t he test, but on t he sub*ect matter of the contract, makin0 the true c riterion a maritime service or a maritime transaction' $ contract for furnishin0 supplies like the one involved in this case is maritime and within the *urisdiction of admiralt.. 6;7 t ma. be invoked before our courts throu0h an action in rem or quasi in rem or an action in personam' Thus 6<7 ::: $rticles 53 and 584 Eof the #ode of #ommerceF provide a method of collectin0 or enforcin0 not onl. the liens created under +ection 58 but also for the collection of an. kind of lien whatsoever'6=7 n the =hilippines, we have a complete le0islation, both substantive and ad*ective, under which to brin0 an action in rem a0ainst a vessel for the purpose of enforcin0 liens' The substantive law is found in $rticle 58 of the #ode of #ommerce' The procedural law is to be found in $rticle 584 of the same #ode' The result is, therefore, that in the =hilippines an. vessel even thou0h it be a forei0n vessel found in an. port of this $rchipela0o ma. be attached and sold under the substantive law which defines the ri0ht, and the procedural law contained in the #ode of #ommerce b. which this ri0ht is to be enforced' 6>7 : : :' ut where neither the law nor the contract between the parties creates an. lien or char0e upon the vessel, the onl. wa. in which it can be sei9ed before *ud0ment is b. pursuin0 the remed. relatin0 to attachment under Rule 5 Enow Rule 53F of the Rules of #ourt.6107 ut, is petitioner #rescent entitled to a maritime lien under our lawsI =etitioner #rescent bases its claim of a maritime lien on Setions 1, and 8 of Presi*enti#' Deree No. 151 (='"' No' !52!), also known as the S"i2 Mort)#)e Deree o 1><= , viz +ec' 2!' aritime 7ien for NecessariesB persons entitled to such lien' % $n. person furnishin0 repairs, supplies, towa0e, use of dr. dock or maritime railwa., or other necessaries, to an. vessel, whether forei0n or domestic, upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authori9ed b. the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which ma. be enforced b. suit in rem, and it shall be necessar. to alle0e or prove that credit was 0iven to the vessel' +ec' 22' =ersons $uthori9ed to =rocure Repairs, +upplies and Necessaries' % The followin0 persons shall be presumed to have authorit. from the owner to procure repairs, supplies, towa0e, use of dr. dock or marine railwa., and other necessaries for the vessel The mana0in0 owner, ships husband, master or an. person to whom the mana0ement of the vessel at the port of suppl. is entrusted' No person tortuousl. or unlawfull. in possession or char0e of a vessel shall have authorit. to bind the vessel' +ec' 2' Notice to =erson Curnishin0 Repairs, +upplies and Necessaries' % The officers and a0ents of a vessel specified in +ection 22 of this "ecree shall be taken to include such officers and a0ents when appointed b. a charterer, b. an owner pro hac vice, or b. an a0reed purchaser in possession of the vesselB but nothin0 in this "ecree shall be construed to confer a lien when the furnisher knew, or b. e:ercise of reasonable dili0ence could have ascertained, that because of the terms of a charter part., a0reement for sale of the vessel, or for an. other reason, the person orderin0 the repairs, supplies, or other necessaries was without authorit. to bind the vessel therefor' =etitioner #rescent submits that these provisions appl. to both domestic and forei0n vessels, as well as domestic and forei0n suppliers of necessaries' t contends that the use of the term an. person in +ection 2! implies that the law is not restricted to domestic suppliers but also includes all persons who suppl. provisions and necessaries to a vessel, whether forei0n or domestic' t points out further that the law does not indicate that the supplies or necessaries must be furnished in the =hilippines in order to 0ive petitioner the ri0ht to seek enforcement of the lien with a =hilippine court' 6117
Respondents essel and +#, on the other hand, maintain that +ection 2! of the ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 does not appl. to a forei0n supplier like petitioner #rescent as the provision refers onl. to a situation where the person furnishin0 the supplies is situated inside the territor. of the =hilippines and not where the necessaries
were furnished in a forei0n *urisdiction like #anada'617 De find a0ainst petitioner #rescent' I. ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 was enacted to accelerate the 0rowth and development of the shippin0 industr. and to e:tend the benefits accorded to overseas shippin0 under =residential "ecree No' 2!4 to domestic shippin0'6187 t is patterned closel. from the @'+' +hip ort0a0e $ct of !2 and the 7iberian aritime 7aw relatin0 to preferred mort0a0es'6147 Notabl., +ections 2!, 22 and 2 of ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 are identical to +ubsections =, J, and R, respectivel., of the @'+' +hip ort0a0e $ct of !2, which is part of the Cederal aritime 7ien $ct' ;ence, @'+' *urisprudence finds relevance to determinin0 whether ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 applies in the present case' The various tests used in the @'+' to determine whether a maritime lien e:ists are the followin0 One. n a suit to establish and enforce a maritime lien for supplies furnished to a vessel in a forei0n port, whether such lien e:ists, or whether the court has or will e:ercise *urisdiction, depends on the '#? o t"e ountr9 ?"ere t"e su22'ies ?ere urnis"e* , which must be pleaded and proved'6157 This principle was laid down in the !888 case of T"e Soti#,61;7 reiterated in T"e #iser i'"e'$ II 61<7 (!!/), in T"e ou*ri"e$61=7 (!2!) and in T"e Cit9 o %t'#nt#61>7 (!24)' T?o. T"e L#urit&enRo$eroR"o*itis tri'o)9 o #ses , which replaced such sin0le%factor methodolo0ies as the law of the place of suppl.'607 n L#urit&en !. L#rsen ,617 a "anish seaman, while temporaril. in New Hork, *oined the crew of a ship of "anish fla0 and re0istr. that is owned b . a "anish citi9en' ;e si0ned the ships articles providin0 that the ri0hts of the crew members would be 0overned b. "anish law and b. the emplo.ers contract with the "anish +eamens @nion, of which he was a member' Dhile in ;avana and in the course of his emplo.ment, he was ne0li0entl. in*ured' ;e sued the shipowner in a federal district court in New Hork for dama0es under the -ones $ct' n holdin0 that "anish law and not the -ones $ct was applicable, the +upreme #ourt adopted a $u'ti2'eont#t test to determine, in the absence of a specific #on0ressional directive as to the statutes reach, which *urisdictions law should be applied' The followin0 factors were considered @1A 2'#e o t"e ?ron)u' #tB @A '#? o t"e '#)B @8A #''e)i#ne or *o$ii'e o t"e in(ure*B @4A #''e)i#ne o t"e *een*#nt s"i2o?nerB @5A 2'#e o ontr#tB @;A in#essi3i'it9 o orei)n oru$B #n* @rleans and whose stock is more than 5G owned b. a @'+' domiciliar. who is also a &reek citi9en' The ship was en0a0ed in re0ularl. scheduled runs between various ports of the @'+' and the iddle 1ast, =akistan, and ndia, with its entire income comin0 from either ori0inatin0 or terminatin0 in the @'+' The contract of emplo.ment provided that &reek law and a &reek collective bar0ainin0 a0reement would appl. between the emplo.er and the se aman and that all claims arisin0 out o f the emplo.ment contract were to be ad* udicated b. a &reek court' The @'+' +upreme #ourt observed that o t"e se!en #tors 'iste* in t"e L#urit&en test, our ?ere in #!or o t"e s"i2o?ner #n* #)#inst (uris*ition. n arrivin0 at the conclusion that the -ones $ct applies, it ruled that the application of the 7aurit9en test is not a mechanical one' t stated thus EtFhe si0nificance of one or more factors must be considered in li0ht of the national interest served b. the assertion of -ones $ct *urisdiction' ( footnote omitted ) oreover, the list of seven factors in 7aurit9en was not intended to be e:haustive' : : : ETFhe shipowners base of operations is another factor of importance in determinin0 whether the -ones $ct is applicableB and there well ma. be others' The principles enunciated in these maritime tort cases have been e:tended to cases involvin0 unpaid supplies and necessaries such as the cases of ors9t"e Intern#tion#' U.., Lt*. !. M-V Rut" Venture ,657 and Co$oo M#rine Ser!ies !. M-V E' Centro#$eri#no. 6;7 T"ree. The #tors 2ro!i*e* in Rest#te$ent @Seon*A o Con'its o L#? have also been applied, especiall. in resolvin0 cases brou0ht under the Cederal aritime 7ien $ct' Their application su00ests that in the absence of an effective choice of law b. the parties, the forum contacts to be considered include (a) the place of contractin0B (b) the place of ne0otiation of the contractB (c) the place of performanceB (d) the location of the sub*ect matter of the contractB and (e) the domicile, residence, nationalit., place of incorporation and place of business of the parties'6<7 n Gu' Tr#*in) #n* Tr#ns2ort#tion Co. !. T"e Vesse' /oe)" S"ie'* ,6=7 an admiralt. action in rem was brou0ht b. an $merican supplier a0ainst a vessel of Norwe0ian fla 0 owned b. a Norwe0ian #ompan. and chartered b . a 7ondon time charterer for unpaid fuel oil and marine diesel oil delivered while the vessel was in @'+' territor.' The contract was e:ecuted in 7ondon' t was held that because the bunker fuel was delivered to a forei0n fla0 vessel within the *urisdiction of the @'+', and because the invoice specified pa.ment in the @'+', the admiralt. and maritime law of the @'+' applied' The @'+' #ourt of $ppeals reco0ni9ed the modern approach to maritime conflict of law problems
introduced in the 7aurit9en case' ;owever, it observed that 7aurit9en involved a torts claim under the -ones $ct while the present claim involves an alle0ed maritime lien arisin0 from unpaid supplies' t made a disclaimer that its conclusion is limited to the uni?ue circumstances surroundin0 a maritime lien as well as the statutor. directives found in the aritime 7ien +tatute and that t"e initi#' "oie o '#? *eter$in#tion is si)nii#nt'9 #ete* 39 t"e st#tutor9 2o'iies surroun*in) # $#riti$e 'ien. t ruled that the facts in the case call for the application of the Restatement (+econd) of #onflicts of 7aw' The @'+' #ourt 0ave much si0nificance to the con0ressional intent in enactin0 the aritime 7ien +tatute to protect the interests of $merican supplier of 0oods, services or necessaries b. makin0 maritime liens available where traditional services are routinel. rendered' t concluded that the aritime 7ien +tatute represents a relevant polic. of the forum that serves the needs of the international le0al s.stem as well as the basic policies underl.in0 maritime law' The court also 0ave e?ual importance to the predictabilit. of result and protection of *ustified e:pectations in a particular field of law' n the maritime realm, it is e:pected that when necessaries are furnished to a vessel in an $merican port b. an $merican supplier, the $merican 7ien +tatute will appl. to protect that supplier re0ardless of the place where the contract was formed or the nationalit. of the vessel' The same principle was applied in the case of S?e*is" Te'eo$ R#*io !. M-V Diso!er9 I 6>7 where the $merican court refused to appl. the Cederal aritime 7ien $ct to create a maritime lien for 0oods and services supplied b. forei0n companies in forei0n ports' n this case, a +wedish compan. supplied radio e?uipment in a +panish port to refurbish a =anamanian vessel dama0ed b. fire' +ome of the contract ne0otiations occurred in +pain and the a0reement for supplies between the parties indicated +wedish compan.s willin0ness to submit to +wedish law' The ship was later sold under a contract of purchase providin0 for the application of New Hork law and was arrested in the @'+' The @'+' #ourt of $ppeals also held that while the contacts%based framework set forth in 7aurit9en was useful in the anal.sis of all maritime choice of law situations, the factors were 0eared towards a seamans in*ur. claim' $s in Gu' Tr#*in), the lien arose b. operation of law because the ships owner was not a part. to the contract under which the 0oods were supplied' $s a result, the court found it more appropriate to consider the factors contained in +ection / of the Restatement (+econd) of #onflicts of 7aw' The @'+' #ourt held that the primar. concern of the Cederal aritime 7ien $ct is the protection of $merican suppliers of 0oods and services' The same factors were applied in the case of Oe#n S"i2 Su22'9, Lt*. !. M-V Le#" '6807 II. Cindin0 0uidance from the fore0oin0 decisions, the #ourt cannot sustain petitioner #rescents insistence on the application of ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 and hold that a maritime lien e:ists' irst. >ut of the seven basic factors listed in the case of L#urit&en, =hilippine law onl. falls under one the law of the forum' $ll other elements are forei0n #anada is the place of the wron0ful act, of the alle0iance or domicile of the in*ured and the place of contractB ndia is the law of the fla0 and the alle0iance of the defendant shipowner' alancin0 these basic interests, it is inconceivable that the =hilippine court has an. interest in the case that outwei0hs the interests of #anada or ndia for that matter' Seon*. ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 is inapplicable followin0 the factors under Restatement (+econd) of #onflict of 7aws' 7ike the Cederal aritime 7ien $ct of the @'+', ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 was enacted primaril. to protect Cilipino suppliers and was not intended to create a lien from a contract for supplies between forei0n entities delivered in a forei0n port' T"ir*. $ppl.in0 ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 and rule that a maritime lien e:ists would not promote the public polic. behind the enactment of the law to develop the domestic shippin0 industr.' >penin0 up our courts to forei0n suppliers b. 0rantin0 them a maritime lien under our laws even if the. are not entitled to a maritime lien under their laws will encoura0e forum shoppin0' in#''9. The submission of petitioner is not in keepin0 with the reasonable e:pectation of the parties to the contract' ndeed, when the parties entered into a contract for supplies in #anada, the. could not have intended the laws of a remote countr. like the =hilippines to determine the creation of a lien b. the mere accident of the essels bein0 in =hilippine territor.' III. ut under which law should petitioner #rescent prove the e:istence of its maritime lienI n li0ht of the interests of the various forei0n elements involved, it is clear that #anada has the most si0nificant interest in this dispute' The in*ured part. is a #anadian corporation, the sub%charterer which placed the orders for the supplies is also #anadian, the entit. which ph.sicall. delivered the bunker fuels is in #anada, the place of contractin0 and ne0otiation is in #anada, and the supplies were delivered in #anada' The arbitration clause contained in the unker Cuel $0reement which states that New Hork law 0overns the construction, validit. and performance of the contract is onl. a factor that ma. be considered in the choice%of%law anal.sis but is not conclusive' $s in the cases of Gu' Tr#*in) and S?e*is" Te'eo$, the lien that is the sub*ect matter of this case arose b. operation of law and not b. contract because the shipowner was not a part. to the contract under which the 0oods were supplied' t is worth. to note that petitioner #rescent never alle0ed and proved #anadian law as basis for the e:istence of a maritime lien' To the end, it insisted on its theor. that =hilippine law applies' =etitioner contends that even if forei0n law applies, since the same was not properl. pleaded and proved, such forei0n law must be presumed to be the same as =hilippine law pursuant to the doctrine of processual presumption' Thus, we are left with two choices (!) dismiss the case for petitioners failure to establish a cause of action 6817 or (2)
presume that #anadian law is the same as =hilippine law' n either case, the case has to be dismissed' t is well%settled that a part. whose cause of action or defense depends upon a forei0n law has the burden of provin0 the forei0n law' +uch forei0n law is treated as a ?uestion of fact to be properl. pleaded and proved'687 =etitioner #rescents insistence on enforcin0 a maritime lien before our courts depended on the e:istence of a maritime lien under the proper law' . erroneousl. claimin0 a maritime lien under =hilippine law instead of provin0 that a maritime lien e:ists under #anadian law, petitioner #rescent failed to establish a cause of action'6887 1ven if we appl. the doctrine of processual presumption, the result will still be the same' @nder ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38, the followin0 are the re?uisites for maritime liens on necessaries to e:ist (!) the necessaries must have been furnished to and for the benefit of the vesselB (2) the necessaries must have been necessar. for the continuation of the vo.a0e of the vesselB () the credit must have been e:tended to the vesselB (4) there must be necessit. for the e:tension of the creditB and (5) the necessaries must be ordered b. persons authori9ed to contract on behalf of the vessel'6847 These do not avail in the instant case' irst. t was not established that benefit was e:tended to the vessel' Dhile this is presumed when the master of the ship is the one who placed the order, it is not disputed that in this case it was the sub%charterer =ortserv which placed the orders to petitioner #rescent'6857 ;ence, the presumption does not arise and it is incumbent upon petitioner #rescent to prove tha t benefit was e:tended to the vessel' =etitioner did not' Seon*' =etitioner #rescent did not show an. proof that the marine products were necessar. for the continuation of the vessel' T"ir*' t was not established that credit was e:tended to the vessel' t is presumed that in the absence of fraud or collusion, where advances are made to a captain in a forei0n port, upon his re?uest, to pa. for necessar. repairs or supplies to enable his vessel to prosecute her vo.a0e, or to pa. harbor dues, or for pilota0e, towa0e and like services rendered to the vessel, that the. are made upon the credit of the vessel as well as upon that of her owners' 68;7 n this case, it was the sub%charterer =ortserv which re?uested for the deliver. of the bunker fuels' The issuance of two checks amountin0 to @+A, in favor of petitioner #rescent prior to the deliver. of the bunkers as securit. for the pa.ment of the obli0ation weakens petit ioner #rescents contention that cred it was e:tended to the essel'
De also note that when copies of the charter parties were submitted b. respondents in the #ourt of $ppeals, the time charters between respondent +# and ;alla and between ;alla and Transmar were shown to contain a clause which states that the #harterers shall provide and pa. for all the fuel e:cept as otherwise a0reed' This militates a0ainst petitioner #rescents position that =ortserv is authori9ed b. the shipowner to contract for supplies upon the credit of the vessel' ourt"' There was no proof of necessit. of credit' $ necessit. of credit will be presumed where it appears that the repairs and supplies were necessar. for the ship and that the. were ordered b. the master' This presumption does not arise in this case since the fuels were not ordered b. the master and there was no proof of necessit. for the supplies' in#''9' The necessaries were not ordered b. persons authori9ed to contract in behalf of the vessel as provided under +ection 22 of ='"' No' !52! or the +hip ort0a0e "ecree of !38 % the mana0in0 owner, the ships husband, master or an. person with whom the mana0ement of the vessel at the port of suppl. is entrusted' #learl., =ortserv, a sub%charterer under a time charter, is not someone to whom the mana0ement of the vessel has been entrusted' $ time charter is a contract for the use of a vessel for a specified period of time or for the duration of one or more specified vo.a0es wherein the owner of the time%chartered vessel retains possession and control throu0h the master and crew who remain his emplo.ees'68<7 Not en*o.in0 the presumption of authorit., petitioner #rescent should have proved that =ortserv was authori9ed b. the shipowner to contract for supplies' =etitioner failed'
$ discussion on the principle of forum non conveniens is unnecessar.' IN VIE /EREO, the "ecision of the #ourt of $ppeals in #$%&'R' No' # 542, dated November 28, 2!, and its subse?uent Resolution of +eptember , 22 are $CCR1"' The instant petition for review on certiorari is "1N1" for lack of merit' #ost a0ainst petitioner' SO ORDERED'
