G.R. No. L-7767 October 26, 1955
JEAN V. PLUMELET, petitioner-appellant, vs. MORALES SHIPPING CO., INC., respondent-appellee.

FACTS

On May 31, 1948, Morales Shipping Co., Inc. employed Jean V. Plumelet as an agent to secure cargo for its vessels, with the condition that bills of lading were to be in the name of the appellee as carrier. On or about June 11, 1948, Plumelet informed the manager that he had secured cargo from the Bureau of Public Works, consigned to the district engineer of Marinduque, to be loaded on the MV San Vicente. The vessel was docked and loaded on June 12, 1948, with a stipulated freight of P4,500. The evidence disclosed that Plumelet made the contract with the Bureau in his own name without disclosing his principal or that the vessel belonged to Morales Shipping. The bill of lading issued made it appear that Plumelet was the owner of the vessel. Due to these circumstances, Morales Shipping demanded advance payment of the freight as a measure of self-protection. Plumelet was unable to pay and asked for time to raise the money. The cargo remained on board from June 12 to July 21, 1948, during which time Plumelet unsuccessfully tried to raise the money and finally unloaded the cargo. On July 1, 1948, Morales Shipping filed a complaint seeking to recover: (a) the freightage of P4,500; (b) demurrage for delaying the ship’s departure at P400 per day, totaling P14,200; and (c) damages of P12,000 for inability to accept other cargo. The Manila court of first instance dismissed the first and third claims but awarded the demurrage of P14,200 with legal interest. Plumelet appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision. Only the issue of Plumelet’s liability for demurrage was submitted on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether Jean V. Plumelet, as an agent of the shipowner, is liable for demurrage or damages for the delay in the vessel’s departure.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and absolved Plumelet from liability. The Court held that demurrage, as stipulated in the charter party, is payable by the charterer or shipper, not by an agent of the shipowner, as Plumelet was found to be. Even if Plumelet were responsible for the delay, damages must be proven, and the stipulated demurrage rate could not be charged to him as he had not agreed to pay it. The Court found that Plumelet was given time to raise the money for advance freight, with no fixed period, and his failure to do so resulted in damnum absque injuria (loss without legal wrong). The shipping company’s retention of the cargo after a reasonable time (four days) was due to its erroneous assertion of a right to demurrage, not imputable to Plumelet. The demand for prepayment was an unwarranted precaution, as the shipping company could have protected its interests by notifying the Bureau of its ownership and asserting its lien on the goods. Any irregularity in Plumelet issuing the bill of lading in his own name was waived when the shipping company agreed to carry the cargo subject to advance payment. At most, if Plumelet defaulted on an absolute promise to pay, the only recoverable damages would be legal interest on the freightage, not demurrage.