53.

] Bacolod Murcia Milling vs CA 182 SCRA 24 (1990)

Facts:
1. BMMC constructed a railroad track system to transport sugar cane from the plantation to the milling
station for period of 45 years beginning the years 1920-1921.
2. However by the year 1964-1965, the railroad tracks over at Hacienda Helvetia was closed due to
the expiration of the milling contract.
3. The residents of the Angela Estates/ Hacienda Helvetia decided not to renew the contract.
4. However, BMMC continues to have milling and transportation contracts by railroad with AgroIndustrial Development of Silay-Saravia (AIDSISA) for 17 years until 1973-74.
5. Due the non-renewal of the right of way contract with Angela Estates, BMMC was unable to
transport sugar canes of Alonso Gatuslao or of AIDSISA beginning 1968.
6. Gatuslao on various dates requested transportation facilities from BMMC to no avail.
7. Gatuslao filed for a Breach of Contract against BMMC and asks for rescission of contract and
damages.
8. BMMC argues that the inability to use its railways system is due to force majeure. In order to
comply they hired private trucks as movers of to haul the sugar canes.
9. Gatuslao/AIDSISA, seriously believing that BMMC is particularly unable to transport and mill their
sugar canes, opted to use trucks provided by Bacolod-Murcia Agricultural Cooperative Marketing
Association, Inc. (BM-ACMA).
10. Further, its inability to do so in effect rescinds the milling contract.
11. BMMC also filed a complaint against AIDSISA and BM-ACMA seeking specific performance of
milling contract. It alleges that Gatuslao/AIDSISA violated the contract by hiring the services of BMACMA.
12. The 2 complaints were consolidated fro trial the CFI- Negros Occidental. Lower court rendered
judgment rescinding the milling contract and damages of Php2,625 and Php5,000 attorneys fees.
BMMC appealed. CA affirmed the CFI decision.
Issue: Whether or not the inability of BMMC to comply with milling contract due to the closure of the
railroad track right of way over Helvetia is force majeure
Held:
No. The closure of the railroad track way at Hacienda Helvetia is due to the expiration of their contract with
the Hacienda. The requisites of force majeure: (a) breach is independent of the will of obligor. (b) Event is
unforeseeable or unavoidable, (c) and the event renders the fulfillment of obligation impossible. Applying
the criteria, the closure of the railroad track is not force majeure. BMMC should have anticipated it and
provided for the eventuality. BMMC took the risk that the Hacienda Helvetia will not renew their contract.
Thus, the closure of the track in the Hacienda, paralyzed the whole transportation system. It was die to the
contract termination, which BMMC has knowledge that caused the Breach of Contract with the other
plantations. Since the closure of the rail road track is a not a case of fortuitous event, the issue is whether
or not BMMC is capable of providing adequate and efficient transportation facilities of the canes of AIDSIA
and other planters. Evidence shows that BMMC is the one who committed breach of contract. A letter from
BMMC was even quoted by the SC. The letter was suggesting planters to explore other solutions to the
problem of milling and transportation. Thus, AIDSIA hiring BM-ACMA is a matter of self-preservation and is
not in anyway a breach of contract.
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the decision of the CA is AFFIRMED in toto.