ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2372   August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 363

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-2372. August 26, 1949.]

    INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CRISANTO ARAGON, Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, and YARAS & COMPANY, FAR EAST, Respondents-Appellants.

    Roxas, Picazo & Mejia for Appellants.

    Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ADMIRALTY; JURISDICTION; MARITIME CONTRACTS. — Admiralty has jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, in whatever form, wherever they were executed or are to be performed, but not over non-maritime contracts.

    2. —ID.; ID.; MARITIME CONTRACTS DEPEND ON THE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF. — Whether or not a contract is maritime depends not on the place where the contract is made and is to be executed, making the locality the test, but on the subject matter of the contract, making the true criterion a maritime service or a maritime transaction.

    3. ID.; ID.; CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT; PROCEEDING "IN REM" OR "IN PERSONAM." — Admiralty has jurisdiction of a proceeding in rem or in personam for the breach of a contract of affreightment, whether evidenced by a bill of lading or a charter party. And typical of a controversy over contracts of affreightment is a suit of one party against the other for loss of or damage to the cargo.

    4. PROHIBITION; COURTS; JURISDICTION; JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY CASES. — Cases in admiralty fall within the original jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance to which the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts does not extend and if the latter courts take cognizance of such cases, they may be restrained by the writ of prohibition.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    On July 9, 1947, the respondent-appellant, Yaras & Company, Far East, filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila (civil case No. IV-262) against the Manila Terminal Co., Inc., and International Harvester Company of the Philippines. The complaint alleges that the defendant Manila Terminal Co., Inc., is in charge of the custody and delivery to the respective owners of cargoes discharged at the Government piers in the City of Manila; that the defendant International Harvester Company of the Philippines is the agent in the Philippines of the vessel Belle of this Sea; that on September 27, 1946, the S/S Belle of the Sea took on board at Los Angeles, California, U. S. A., goods for shipment to Manila, Philippines, and covered by Bill of Lading No. 105; that the S/S Bellee of the Sea arrived in Manila on December 23, 1946, and discharged her cargo at the Government piers under the supervision and custody of the defendant Manila Terminal Co., Inc.; that out of the goods covered by Bill of Lading No. 105, one carton of assorted samples with a stipulated value of P200 was not delivered to Yaras & Company; and said merchandise was lost through the negligence either of the Manila Terminal Co., Inc., or of the International Harvester Company of the Philippines. The complaint prayed for judgment either against the defendant Manila Terminal Co., Inc., or the International Harvester Company of the Philippines for the amount of P200, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint.

    Before the trial could be proceeded with, the International Harvester Company of the Philippines filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that the Municipal Court of Manila had no jurisdiction to try the case because the action involves admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, which motion was overruled by the municipal court on December 16, 1947. In due time, the International Harvester Company of the Philippines filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for prohibition (civil case No. 4328) against the Hon. Crisanto Aragon, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila, and Yaras & Company, Far East, for the purpose of restraining said respondent judge from proceeding with civil case No. IV-262 in so far as the International Harvester Company of the Philippines was concerned, on the ground that admiralty or maritime jurisdiction 16 involved. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners, International Harvester Company of the Philippines, ordering the respondent judge of the municipal court to desist from taking cognizance of civil case No. IV-262 as against the International Harvester Company of the Philippines. From this judgment the respondents have appealed.

    From the facts alleged in the complaint filed in the municipal court, it is clear that the International Harvester Company of the Philippines, as agent in the Philippines of the vessel S/S Belle of the Sea, is alternatively being held liable for the loss of the cargo in question through its negligence. Inasmuch as it is expressly alleged that the cargo of the S/S Belle of the Sea was discharged on December 23, 1946, at the Government piers under the supervision and custody of the Manila Terminal Company, Inc., the International Harvester Company of the Philippines may be held liable only on the assumption that the goods had been lost in transit or before being discharged at the pier. In other words, the liability of the International Harvester Company of the Philippines is predicated on the contract of carriage by sea between the International Harvester Company of the Philippines and Yaras & Company as evidenced by Bill of Lading No. 105, independently of the liability of the Manila Terminal Co., Inc., as operator of an arrastre service.

    Admiralty has jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, in whatever form, wherever they were executed or are to be performed, but not over non-maritime contracts. (2 Corpus Juris Secundom, p. 84.) Whether or not a contract is maritime depends not on the place where the contract is made and is to be executed, making the locality the test, but on the subject-matter of the contract, making the true criterion a maritime service or a maritime transaction. (Id., p. 85.) Specifically, admiralty has jurisdiction of a proceeding in rem or in personam for the breach of a contract of affreightment, whether evidenced by a bill of lading or a charter party. (Id., pp. 90-91.) And typical of a controversy over contracts of affreightment is a suit of one party against the other for loss of or damage to the cargo. (1 American Jurisprudence, p. 567.) This is the very case now before us, because the respondent Yaras & Company seeks to recover from the petitioner International Harvester Company of the Philippines the value of a certain lost cargo.

    The contention of the respondent Yaras & Company that admiralty jurisdiction is not involved herein because the contract in question was made upon land and to be terminated upon land, merely reflects the English rule which had long been rejected in the United States. It is now settled in the latter country that "the jurisdiction of admiralty in matters of contract depends upon the subject-matter, i. e., the nature and character of the contract, and that the English rule which conceded jurisdiction (with few exceptions) only to contracts made upon and to be performed upon navigable waters, is inadmissible, the true criterion being that the contract has reference to maritime service or maritime transaction." (Benedict on Admiralty, 6th Ed., Vol. 1, p. 127.) We choose to adopt the sound American rule. Even in England the English rule was not without protest. Lord Kenyon, in Menetone v. Gibbons, 3 Term, 269, had expressed the following criticism: "if the admiralty has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, to say that it is necessary for the parties to go upon the sea to execute the instrument borders upon absurdity."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The respondent Yaras & Company cannot invoke the rule against multiplicity of suits, for the simple reason that said rule has to be subservient to the superior requirement that the court must have jurisdiction. In view of our conclusion that the cause of action of said respondent against International Harvester Company of the Philippines involves admiralty over which the courts of first instance have original jurisdiction (Par. 4, Sec. 56, Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, as reproduced in sec. 43 [d] of Republic Act No. 296), and to which the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts (including municipal courts) does not extend (sec. 68, Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 4090, reproduced in par. 2, sec. 88, Republic Act No. 296), the respondent judge was properly restrained from further proceeding with civil case No. IV-262.

    We hold also that prohibition is the proper remedy, since the respondent judge was taking cognizance of the case over which he had no jurisdiction and his order overruling the motion to dismiss filed by the petitioner-appellee is interlocutory and therefore not appealable. (Sec. 2 of Rule 67, Rules of Court 2.) At any rate, the remedy of appeal available when the case shall have been decided on the merits, is inadequate.

    The appealed judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs against the appellant Yaras & Company. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2372   August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 363


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED