Transfield Philippines vs Luzon Hydro Electric Corp.

GR No 146717, Nov 22, 2004

Facts: Transfield Philippines (Transfield) entered into a turn-key contract with Luzon Hydro Corp.
(LHC).Under the contract, Transfield were to construct a hydro-electric plants in Benguet and Ilocos.
Transfield was given the sole responsibility for the design, construction, commissioning, testing and
completion of the Project. The contract provides for a period for which the project is to be completed
and also allows for the extension of the period provided that the extension is based on justifiable
grounds such as fortuitous event. In order to guarantee performance by Transfield, two stand-by letters
of credit were required to be opened. During the construction of the plant, Transfield requested for
extension of time citing typhoon and various disputes delaying the construction. LHC did not give due
course to the extension of the period prayed for but referred the matter to arbitration committee.
Because of the delay in the construction of the plant, LHC called on the stand-by letters of credit
because of default. However, the demand was objected by Transfield on the ground that there is still
pending arbitration on their request for extension of time.

Issue: Whether or not LHC can collect from the letters of credit despite the pending arbitration case

Held: Transfield’s argument that any dispute must first be resolved by the parties, whether through
negotiations or arbitration, before the beneficiary is entitled to call on the letter of credit in essence
would convert the letter of credit into a mere guarantee.

The independent nature of the letter of credit may be: (a) independence in toto where the credit is
independent from the justification aspect and is a separate obligation from the underlying agreement
like for instance a typical standby; or (b) independence may be only as to the justification aspect like in a
commercial letter of credit or repayment standby, which is identical with the same obligations under the
underlying agreement. In both cases the payment may be enjoined if in the light of the purpose of the
credit the payment of the credit would constitute fraudulent abuse of the credit.

Jurisprudence has laid down a clear distinction between a letter of credit and a guarantee in that the
settlement of a dispute between the parties is not a pre-requisite for the release of funds under a letter
of credit. In other words, the argument is incompatible with the very nature of the letter of credit. If a
letter of credit is drawable only after settlement of the dispute on the contract entered into by the
applicant and the beneficiary, there would be no practical and beneficial use for letters of credit in
commercial transactions.

The engagement of the issuing bank is to pay the seller or beneficiary of the credit once the draft and
the required documents are presented to it. The so-called “independence principle” assures the seller or
the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract and precludes the
issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not. Under this
principle, banks assume no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness,
falsification or legal effect of any documents, or for the general and/or particular conditions stipulated
in the documents or superimposed thereon, nor do they assume any liability or responsibility for the
description, quantity, weight, quality, condition, packing, delivery, value or existence of the goods
represented by any documents, or for the good faith or acts and/or omissions, solvency, performance or
standing of the consignor, the carriers, or the insurers of the goods, or any other person whomsoever.