AEROSPACE VS CA – KINDS OF NON.docx

AEROSPACE AEROSPACE VS CA – KINDS OF NON-PERFORMANCE NO N-PERFORMANCE – DELAY  FACTS: Petition Petitioner er Aerospa Aerospace ce purchased purchased 500 metric tons of sulfuric sulfuric acid from private private respondent Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. The agreement provided that petitioner as buyer committed to secure the means of transport to pickup the purchases from private responden respondent!s t!s loadports. loadports. Per agreement" agreement" #00 $T of sulfuric sulfuric acid should be take take from from %asay" &egros storage tank 'hile remaining (00 $T should be retrieved from )angi" Cebu. Private respondent sent an advisory letter to 'ithdra' the sulfuric acid at &egros because private respondent had been incurring incremental e*pense of +000 for each day of delay in shipment. Petitioner chartered $,T )ultan -ayumanggi" the vessel 'as assigned to carry the agreed volumes of freight from designated loading areas. $,T -ayumanggi 'ithdre' only 0.0/ $T of )ulfuric acid from %asay" &egros because said vessel heavily tilted. The master of the ship stopped further loading. Thereafter" the vessel under'ent repairs. n a demand letter" private respondent asked petitioner to retrieve the remaining sulfuric acid in %asay. Private respondent said that it 'ould charge petitioner the storage and conse1uential costs for the %asay tanks" including all other incremental e*penses due to loading delay" if petitioner failed to comply. comply. $,T )ultan -ayumanggi docked at )angi" Cebu but 'ithdre' only #5.5# $T of  sulfuric acid. Again" the vessel tilted and further loading 'as aborted. 2ater" on a date not speci3ed in the record" $,T )ultan -ayumanggi sank 'ith a total of ++.5# $T of sulfuric acid on board. Petitioner chartered another vessel" $,T 4on ictor" a capacity of appro*imately 500 $T. Petitioner addressed letter to private respondent concerning additional orders of  sulfuric acid 'ith 1uantity of ++.5# $T to replace the sunken purchases and that they are 'illing to pay the additional order. Petitioner!s counsel" send a demand letter to private respondent for the delivery of the ++.(/ $T of sulfuric acid paid by his client or return of the purchase price. Private respondent in replt" instructed petitioner to lift the remaining 60 $T of sulfuric acid from %asay" &egros or pay maintenance m aintenance and storage e*penses. Petitioner 'rote another letter insisting on picking up its purchases consisting of  ++.(/ $T and an additional ++.5# $T of sulfuric acid. %y telephone" petitioner re1uested private respondent!s shipping manager to get its additional order of ++.5# $T of sulfuric acid. Private respondent!s senior manager replied stating that they cannot accommodate the re1uest as there 'as a delay in arrival of imported sulfuric acid from 7apan. Petitioner 3led a complaint for speci3c performance and,or damages before the 8TC. Priva Private te respo responden ndentt 3led 3led its ans'er ans'er 'ith 'ith counte counterc rclai laim" m" statin stating g that that it 'as the petitioner 'ho 'as remiss in the performance of its obligation in arranging the shipping re1uirements of its purchases and as a conse1uence should pay damages. RTC – The – The trial court held that the petitioner 'as absolved in its obligation to pick up the remaining sulfuric acid because its failure 'as due to force ma9eure. According to the trial court" it 'as private respondent 'ho committed breach of contract 'hen it failed to accommodate the additional order of the petitioner" to replace those that sank in the sea.

CA – The CA reversed the decision of the 8TC. %ased on the facts" it is clear that plainti: had the obligation to 'ithdra' the full amount of 500 $T of sulfuric acid. Contrary to the position of the trial court" the sinking of $,T )ultan -ayumanggi did not absolve the plainti: from its obligation to lift the rest of the ++.(/ $T of sulfuric acid at the agreed time. t 'as the plainti:!s duty to charter another vessel for the purpose. The CA found that petitioner is guilty of delay and negligence in the performance of its obligation.  The motion for reconsideration 3led by petitioner. t claims that its failure to pick up the remaining purchases on time 'as due to a storm" a force ma9eure" 'hich sank the vessel. t thus claims e*emption from liability to pay damages. Issue: ;hether or not petitioner is guilty of delay Held:  4.

Reuisites o! dela": #. That the obligation be demandable and already li1uidated +. That the debtor delays performance 6. That the creditor re1uires the performance 9udicially or e*tra9udicially