Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari anchored upon the following grounds: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THE DEFENDANT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF S CLAIM SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 3OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERTAKING EXECUTED BY THE DEFENDANT ON APRIL 10, 1987. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THE DEFENDANT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIM NOTWITHSTANDING THE FINDING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SEAGULL MARITIME CORPORATION, ET AL. VS. NERRY BALATONGAN, ET AL. G. R. NO. 82252, February 28, 1989) THAT PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN NEGLIGENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS OBLIGATION TOWARDS SEAMEN NERRY BALATONGAN.10 (Underscoring in the original) As earlier stated, SEAGULL was the manning agent of NAVALES which was acting for and on behalf of OYSTER SHIPPING, TURTLE BAY SHIPPING and KOALA SHIPPING. Upon the other hand, SEASCORP was the manning agent of NAVALES which was acting for and on behalf of ARAWA BAY SHIPPING. When on April 10, 1987, SEASCORP, in compliance with the requirements of POEA in connection with its application for registration as manning agent of NAVALES, submitted its Affidavit of Understanding stating that it was able willing and ready to assume any and all liabilities that may arise or that may have arisen with respect to seamen recruited and deployed by SEAGULL . . . for NAVALES . . ., SEASCORP could only have referred to liabilities that may arise or have arisen with respect to seamen it recruited and deployed for NAVALES acting for and on behalf of ARAWA BAY SHIPPING. For SEAGULL could not have recruited and deployed any seamen for NAVALES acting for and on behalf of ARAWA BAY SHIPPING because the Manning Agreement SEAGULL entered into with NAVALES covered the recruitment of seamen only forTURTLE BAY SHIPPING, OYSTER BAY SHIPPING and KOALA SHIPPING on whose behalf NAVALES was therein acting. There is no doubt that the general rule is that when the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous about the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. That is the mandate of Article 1370 of the Civil Code which provides: ART. 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.