Maritime Liens and Foreign Suppliers: Jurisdiction in Vessel Supply Disputes

---

A foreign supplier delivered bunker fuel to a vessel in Canada, but when payment failed, it seized the vessel in the Philippines and sued. The Supreme Court's ruling in Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. v. M/V "Lok Maheshwari" clarifies when Philippine courts will hear maritime lien claims by foreign suppliers — and when they will not.

The case matters because it shows that a vessel's physical presence in Philippine waters does not automatically give a foreign supplier a maritime lien under Philippine law. Courts look beyond location to determine which country's law governs the dispute.

The Facts

M/V "Lok Maheshwari" was an Indian-registered vessel owned by the Shipping Corporation of India. It was time-chartered through a chain of sub-charters, eventually reaching Portserv Limited, a Canadian company. In November 1995, Portserv ordered bunker fuel from Crescent Petroleum, a Canadian supplier, for delivery to the vessel at Vancouver, Canada.

Crescent paid its own supplier and delivered the fuel. When Portserv's checks bounced and no payment came, Crescent waited for the vessel to dock in Cebu City, Philippines, then filed suit. The trial court issued a writ of attachment and later ruled in Crescent's favor. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Crescent appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

Could Crescent, a foreign supplier, enforce a maritime lien against a foreign vessel under Philippine law — specifically, Presidential Decree No. 1521, the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that P.D. No. 1521 was enacted primarily to protect Filipino suppliers and to develop the domestic shipping industry. It was not intended to create liens for contracts between foreign entities for supplies delivered in foreign ports.

The Court applied a multi-factor test drawn from U.S. maritime jurisprudence, including the Lauritzen factors: the place of the wrongful act, the law of the flag, the allegiance of the parties, the place of contract, and the law of the forum. In this case, only the forum was Philippine. Canada was the place of contracting, delivery, and the domicile of the supplier and sub-charterer; India was the flag state and owner's domicile. The Philippines had no significant interest in the dispute.

The Court also considered the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws factors. Since the contract was made and performed in Canada, and all parties were foreign, Canadian law had the most significant relationship to the dispute.

Why the Lien Failed

Even assuming Philippine law applied, Crescent still failed to establish a maritime lien under P.D. No. 1521. The Court identified several deficiencies:

• No benefit to the vessel proven. The fuel was ordered by the sub-charterer, not the master, so the presumption of benefit to the vessel did not arise.
• No proof of credit to the vessel. The checks given as security suggested credit was extended to the charterer, not the vessel.
• No authority to bind the vessel. Under Section 22 of P.D. No. 1521, only the managing owner, ship's husband, master, or person entrusted with management at the port of supply can bind the vessel. A time charterer like Portserv does not qualify.

Because Crescent never pleaded and proved Canadian law, and its claim failed even under Philippine law, the case had to be dismissed.

Practical Takeaways

• A vessel's presence in Philippine waters is not enough. Philippine courts will apply a choice-of-law analysis to determine whether a maritime lien exists.
• Foreign suppliers must prove the existence of a maritime lien under the proper foreign law — it is treated as a question of fact that must be pleaded and proved.
• Philippine law (P.D. No. 1521) primarily protects Filipino suppliers and domestic shipping interests.
• Suppliers should verify who orders the supplies. If a charterer orders, the supplier must prove the charterer had authority to bind the vessel.
• Check whether credit is extended to the vessel or only to the charterer. Security from the charterer may undermine a claim against the vessel.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.