[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
424 views1 page

AEROSPACE CHEMICAL v. CA

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was guilty of delay and negligence in the performance of its contractual obligations. Specifically: 1) Delay begins from the time the obligee demands performance from the obligor, either judicially or extrajudicially. 2) The petitioner failed to comply with its obligation under the contract to transport purchased sulfuric acid from the private respondent's loadports by the agreed upon date. 3) When the private respondent made an extrajudicial demand for the petitioner to lift the cargo, and the petitioner failed to do so, it became liable for delay. The petitioner is liable for damages caused by its failure to perform.

Uploaded by

Rizza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
424 views1 page

AEROSPACE CHEMICAL v. CA

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was guilty of delay and negligence in the performance of its contractual obligations. Specifically: 1) Delay begins from the time the obligee demands performance from the obligor, either judicially or extrajudicially. 2) The petitioner failed to comply with its obligation under the contract to transport purchased sulfuric acid from the private respondent's loadports by the agreed upon date. 3) When the private respondent made an extrajudicial demand for the petitioner to lift the cargo, and the petitioner failed to do so, it became liable for delay. The petitioner is liable for damages caused by its failure to perform.

Uploaded by

Rizza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

76

AEROSPACE CHEMICAL v. CA
G.R. NO. 108129
QUISUMBING, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: Delay begins from the time the obligee judicially or
extrajudicially demands from the obligor the performance of the obligation.

FACTS: 
This petition for review. Petitioner Aerospace Industries, Inc. purchased five hundred
metric tons of sulfuric acid from private respondent Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer
Corporation. Agreement provided that the buyer shall pay its purchases in equivalent
Philippine currency value, five days prior to the shipment date. Petitioner as buyer
committed to secure the means of transport to pick-up the purchases from private
respondent's loadports. Again, the vessel tilted. Further loading was aborted. Two
survey reports conducted by the Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) Far East
limited attested to these occurrences. Later, M/T Sultan Kayumanggi sank, petitioner
chartered another vessel, M/T Don Victor. Melecio Hernandez, acting for the petitioner,
addressed letters to private respondent, concerning additional orders of sulfuric acid to
replace its sunken purchases. 

ISSUE: 
Whether petitioner is guilty of delay and negligence in the performance of its obligation

RULING:
Yes. The assailed decision of CA granted with modifications. Delay begins from the time
the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from the obligor the performance of the
obligation. In order that the debtor may be in default, it is necessary that the following
requisites be present: (1) that the obligation be demandable and already liquidated; (2)
that the debtor delays performance; and (3) that the creditor requires the performance
judicially or extrajudicially.
Petitioner is guilty of delay, after private respondent made the necessary extrajudicial
demand by requiring petitioner to lift the cargo at its designated loadports. When
petitioner failed to comply with its obligations under the contract it became liable for its
shortcomings. Petitioner is indubitably liable for proven damages.

You might also like