Case Digest: Crescent Petroleum vs. MV Lor, G.R. No. 155014

 

Crescent Petroleum vs. MV Lor, G.R. No. 155014, November 11, 2005

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Respondent M/V "Lok Maheshwari" (Vessel) is an oceangoing vessel of Indian registry that is owned by respondent Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of India. It was time-chartered by respondent SCI to Halla Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. (Halla), a South Korean company.

Halla, in turn, sub-chartered the Vessel through a time charter to Transmar Shipping, Inc. (Transmar). Transmar further sub-chartered the Vessel to Portserv Limited (Portserv). Both Transmar and Portserv are corporations organized and existing under the laws of Canada. November 1, 1995, Portserv requested petitioner Crescent, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada that is engaged in the business of selling petroleum and oil products for the use and operation of oceangoing vessels, to deliver marine fuel oils to the Vessel.

Petitioner Crescent granted and confirmed the request through an advice via facsimile dated November 2, 1995. Crescent received two (2) checks as security payment. Crescent then contracted the supplier, Marine Petrobulk Limited, another Canadian corporation, for the physical delivery of the bunker fuels to the Vessel.

On November 4, 1995, Marine Petrobulk delivered the bunker fuels at the port of Pioneer Grain, Vancouver, Canada and was acknowledge and received the delivery receipt by the Chief Engineer.    

On May 2, 1996, while the Vessel was docked at the port of Cebu City, petitioner Crescent instituted before the RTC of Cebu City an action "for a sum of money with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary attachment" against respondents Vessel and SCI, Portserv and/or Transmar and was granted.

ISSUE

Whether or not Ship Mortgage Decree provides for relief to Crescent Petroleum for its unpaid claim.

RULING

Yes. 

Under P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978, the following are the requisites for maritime liens on necessaries to exist: (1) the "necessaries" must have been furnished to and for the benefit of the vessel; (2) the "necessaries" must have been necessary for the continuation of the voyage of the vessel; (3) the credit must have been extended to the vessel; (4) there must be necessity for the extension of the credit; and (5) the necessaries must be ordered by persons authorized to contract on behalf of the vessel.

In this case, Not enjoying the presumption of authority, petitioner Crescent should have proved that Portserv was authorized by the shipowner to contract for supplies. Thus, Crescent Petroleum failed.