Scribd
Upload
36 views2 pages

Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National Seamen Board

This document discusses a court case regarding a seaman, Gregorio Candongo, who was required to disembark from a ship before the expiration of his contract. The National Seamen Board ruled that Litonjua Shipping Company, as the local agent of the charterer, was liable to pay damages to Candongo. The court affirmed this ruling, finding that Litonjua could be held liable both as the agent of the charterer, who was treated as the owner of the ship, and on ethical grounds since Litonjua benefited from Candongo's employment.

Uploaded by

sophia
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
36 views2 pages

Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National Seamen Board

This document discusses a court case regarding a seaman, Gregorio Candongo, who was required to disembark from a ship before the expiration of his contract. The National Seamen Board ruled that Litonjua Shipping Company, as the local agent of the charterer, was liable to pay damages to Candongo. The court affirmed this ruling, finding that Litonjua could be held liable both as the agent of the charterer, who was treated as the owner of the ship, and on ethical grounds since Litonjua benefited from Candongo's employment.

Uploaded by

sophia
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/ 2

Time charter

9. Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National Seamen Board

G.R. No. L-51910 August 10, 1989

LITONJUA SHIPPING COMPANY INC., petitioner


vs.
NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD and GREGORIO P. CANDONGO respondents.

FELICIANO, J.:

FACTS

Petitioner is the local crewing managing office of Fairwind Shipping Corporation.


M/V Dufton Bay under charter by Fairwind, contracted the services of Gregorio Candongo as Third
Engineer for 12 months.
before the expiration of contract, respondent was required to disembark. Describe in his seaman’s
handbook is the reason “by owner’s arrange.”

Condongo filed a complaint against Mullion (Shipping company) for violation of contract and against
Litonjua as agent of shipowner.

NSB rendered a judgment by default for failure of petitioners to appear during the initial hearing, rendering
the same to pay Candongo because there was no sufficient or valid cause for the respondents to
terminate the service of the complainant.

Petitioner contends that the shipowner, nor the charterer, was the employer of private respondent; and
that liability for damages cannot be imposed upon petitioner which was a mere agent of the charterer.

ISSUE

Whether or not Litonjua may be held liable to the private respondent on the contract of employment?

HELD

there are two (2) grounds upon which petitioner Litonjua may be held liable to the private respondent
on the contract of employment.

The first basis is the charter party which existed between Mullion, the shipowner, and Fairwind, the
charterer.

It is well settled that in a demise or bare boat charter, the charterer is treated as owner pro hac vice of the
vessel, the charterer assuming in large measure the customary rights and liabilities of the shipowner in
relation to third persons who have dealt with him or with the vessel. In such case, the Master of the vessel
is the agent of the charterer and not of the shipowner. The charterer or owner pro hac vice, and not the
general owner of the vessel, is held liable for the expenses of the voyage including the wages of the
seamen

Treating Fairwind as owner pro hac vice, petitioner Litonjua having failed to show that it was not such,
petitioner Litonjua, as Philippine agent of the charterer, may be held liable on the contract of employment
between the ship captain and the private respondent.
There is a second and ethically more compelling basis for holding petitioner Litonjua liable on the contract
of employment of private respondent. The charterer of the vessel, Fairwind, clearly benefitted from the
employment of private respondent as Third Engineer of the Dufton Bay, along with the ten (10) other
Filipino crewmembers recruited at the same occasion.

In so doing, petitioner Litonjua certainly in effect represented that it was taking care of the crewing and
other requirements of a vessel chartered by its principal, Fairwind.

Last, but certainly not least, there is the circumstance that extreme hardship would
result for the private respondent if petitioner Litonjua, as Philippine agent of the
charterer, is not held liable to private respondent upon the contract of employment.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED and the Decision of the then National
Seamen Board dated 31 May 1979 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like