{"id":981,"date":"2016-08-16T22:47:15","date_gmt":"2016-08-16T22:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=981"},"modified":"2024-04-23T03:55:30","modified_gmt":"2024-04-23T03:55:30","slug":"interpretation-of-charter-party-agreements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/?p=981","title":{"rendered":"INTERPRETATION OF CHARTER PARTY AGREEMENTS"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"981\" class=\"elementor elementor-981\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-c93c7d3 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default\" data-id=\"c93c7d3\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-ef1e526\" data-id=\"ef1e526\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-a7e3c2e elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"a7e3c2e\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>The Supreme Court declared in <em>Federal Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Fortune Sea Carrier, Inc<\/em>. (G.R. No. 188118, 23 November 2015) that the nature of a charter party is determined by the intention of the parties and not its nomeclature.<\/p><p>In the Time Charter Party Agreement entered into by Fortune Sea and Northern Mindanao Transport Co., Inc. (\u201cNorthern Transport\u201d), the former agreed to lease its vessel, M\/V Ricky Rey, to the latter for 90 days, which was later extended for another 90 days.<\/p><p>During the term of the Time Charter Party agreement, Northern Transport ordered 2,069 bales of abaca fibers to be shipped on board M\/V Ricky Rey for delivery. The shipment was insured by Federal Phoenix Assurance Co., Ltd. (\u201cFederal Phoenix\u201d).<\/p><p>While the goods were being discharged, fire razed and damaged 60 bales of abaca, the value of which was paid for by Federal Phoenix to the consignee. Federal Phoenix then demanded damages from Fortune Sea, which the latter ignored. Accordingly, Federal Phoenix filed a complaint for sum of money against Fortune Sea.<\/p><p>In denying liability, Fortune Sea insisted that it was acting as a private carrier at the time the incident occurred. It alleged that the Time Charter Party agreement executed by the parties expressly provided that M\/V Ricky Rey shall be under the order and complete control of Northern Transport. The trial court ruled against Fortune Sea, but was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which held that Fortune Sea is a private carrier.<\/p><p>The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals\u2019 ruling and held that Fortune Sea is a private carrier. The Supreme Court declared that the Time Charter Party agreement clearly shows that the charter includes both the vessel and its crew thereby making Northern Transport the owner <em>pro hac vice<\/em> of M\/V Ricky Rey during the whole period of the voyage.<\/p><p>M\/V Ricky Rey was converted into a private carrier notwithstanding the existence of the Time Charter Party agreement with Northern Transport since said agreement was not limited to the ship, but extends even to the control of its crew. Despite the denomination a Time Charter by the parties, their agreement undoubtedly reflected that their intention was to enter into a Bareboat Charter Agreement.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court declared in Federal Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Fortune Sea Carrier, Inc. (G.R. No. 188118, 23 November 2015) that the nature of a charter party is determined by the intention of the parties and not its nomeclature. In the&#8230;<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-shipping"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=981"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/981\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3925,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/981\/revisions\/3925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}