[ G.R. No. 142393. June 14, 2000]

GLAFKI [HELLAS] MARITIME CO., et al. vs. RFM CORP.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 142393 (Glafki [Hellas] Maritime Co., Allseas Chartering Corporation and Adamson [Philippines], Inc. vs. RFM Corporation.)

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the order issued by the regional trial court granting private respondent's motion for reconsideration despite the absence of notice of hearing on petitioners.

The background facts are as follows:

On July 28, 1990, the vessel MV "Alkyonis" arrived in the Philippines with a cargo of 5,320 tons of soya bean meal from Darrow, Louisiana, consigned to private respondent RFM Corporation.

This voyage of MV "Alkyonis" was covered by 2 charter party agreements, a time charter party, and a voyage charter party.

The parties to the time charter party are petitioners Allseas Chartering Corporation, represented by its agent Glafki (Hellas) Maritime Co., as owners of the vessel and Adamson (Phils.), Inc. which is the Philippine agent of said owners, and Randy Bulk Carriers Corp., represented by Commodity Ocean Transport Corporation as time charterer.

The Time Charterers, in turn, entered into a voyage charter party, now as disponent owners, with Stellar Chartering Brokerage, Inc. (Stellar) as voyage charter. Private respondent, as consignee, became a party to a contract of carriage evidenced by the three Bills of Lading issued by Astral Int.'l Shipping Services, Inc. as agents for Stellar, the voyage charterer.

MV Alkyonis arrived in the Philippines 120 days behind the estimated date of arrival caused by the fact that it caught fire during the early stage of its voyage from its port of origin.

When the cargo was unloaded, private respondent RFM Corporation protested that 3,000 metric tons of said cargo, valued at US$951,990.00 were no longer in good order condition. Hence, the case in the court below.

Thereafter, private respondent sought the seizure of the vessel but petitioners posted a counterbond. Private respondent's claim is for US$951,990.00 as actual damages, US$175,000 as lost profits, attorney's fees, interest, and costs. Petitioners refused to pay, electing instead to file a motion to dismiss, invoking the arbitration clause of the charter party incorporated in the three mentioned Bills of Lading.

The regional trial court, in its order dated April 1, 1991, denied the motion to dismiss but directed the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration, pursuant to the Arbitration Clause. The proceedings were suspended pending the return of the arbitral award on August 13 and 14, 1991.

On August 20, 1991, private respondent filed a motion claiming to have tried to participate in the arbitration in New York, USA for demurrage between the parties to the voyage charter party but that it was barred from ventilating its cargo claim in said arbitration proceedings.

Consequently, the trial court reversed its previous order and ordered the lifting of the order of suspension and directed petitioners to file their answer within the reglementary period.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rules 65 of Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals but to no avail.

Thus, the instant petition.

Petitioners assert that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the order of the trial court granting private respondent's motion for reconsideration of the order of the trial court dated April 1, 1991 despite the absence of the requisite notice of hearing.

It is worthy to note that the trial court's initial reaction to the assailed motion for reconsideration was stated in the Order dated 17 May 1991, to wit:

Considering that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration dated 29 April 1991 does not contain a notice of hearing in violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the court merely takes note of said motion.

On August 26, 1991, however, the trial court issued another order, which states:

The Manifestation of the plaintiff dated 26 August 1991 is noted. Meantime, resolution of the motion for reconsideration on the 1 April 1991 order is held in abeyance pending receipt of the authenticated copy of the minutes of the arbitration proceedings held in New York last 13 and 14 August 1991.

Thus, when private respondent submitted the authenticated copy of the Minutes of the arbitration proceedings held in New York on the 13th and 14th of August 1991 in compliance with the directive of the trial court, the lifting of the suspension of proceedings became the logical consequence. Surely, petitioners cannot pretend having been surprised by the motion of private respondent which was filed sometime in April 1991, for the same was not granted - in fact it was initially denied - until December 21, 1991.

At any rate, the Court will not hesitate to set aside technicalities in favor of what is fair and just (Ysmael vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 165 [(1997)]. The trend of our rulings is towards affording every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities (Trans International vs. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 49).

Anent the other assertion that the Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in ruling upon the merits of the case because it has no authority to rule upon the merits of the case in a petition for certiorari involving only an incident of the main case, it may be apt to remind petitioners that having raised the issue of arbitration in their petition before the Court of Appeals, they made that issue ripe for determination. For after all, the Court of Appeals should be allowed to synthesize and to simplify its decision considering that at present courts are harassed by crowded dockets and time constraints (People vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 92 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com