November 1967 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > November 1967 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-24544 November 15, 1967 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. P.D. MARCHESSINI & CO., INC., ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-24544. November 15, 1967.]
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.D. MARCHESSINI & CO. (NEW YORK), INC., and/or DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., LITONJUA & CO. INC., REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, and/or BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and/or CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, in their capacity as arrastre operators at the Port of Manila, Defendants-Appellees.
Cruz, Napiñas & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Defendants-Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. ARRASTRE SERVICE; NATURE THEREOF; IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT FROM SUIT. — The Republic of the Philippines, in operating the arrastre service through its agencies, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service, does so only as a necessary incident of its prime governmental function of taxation. Such a performance, for obvious reasons of public policy, does not amount to a waiver of its immunity from suit (Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, L-23139, Dec. 17, 1966.)
2. CLAIMS; MONEY CLAIM; WHERE FILED. — The claim, being a money claim, should have been filed in the Office of the Auditor General, in accordance with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327. Such a claim for a fixed amount based on fairly accessible papers and documents, does not strike Us as unliquidated in nature (Insurance Company of North America v. Republic, L-27517, Sept. 15, 1967).
2. CLAIMS; MONEY CLAIM; WHERE FILED. — The claim, being a money claim, should have been filed in the Office of the Auditor General, in accordance with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327. Such a claim for a fixed amount based on fairly accessible papers and documents, does not strike Us as unliquidated in nature (Insurance Company of North America v. Republic, L-27517, Sept. 15, 1967).
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
P.D. Marchessini & Company, a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, owns and operates SS "Eurygenes" with Delgado Shipping Agencies, Inc. as its agent in the Philippines. Shipped through its vessels from Charleston, South Carolina, were nineteen (19) bales of drapery remnants consigned to Maria M. Sarda in Manila. For some reason, however, the SS "Eurygenes" did not proceed to the Philippines but docked in Hongkong where the cargo was transhipped to Manila on board SS "New Teh Hu", represented in the Philippines by its agent, Litonjua & Co., Inc.
Although SS "New Teh Hu" arrived in Manila on October 3, 1963, it proceeded to Thailand without unloading the cargo. It was only upon its return to Manila on October 29, 1963, that the vessel discharged the cargo to the custody of the Bureau of Customs, then operating the arrastre service.
The consignee, Maria M. Sarda who had insured the shipment with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 1 did not get delivery of the goods. As a result, she was paid P24,715.00 on the insurance by the Hartford Insurance Co. and the latter, as subrogee to the consignee, demanded from the Bureau of Customs recovery of said amount.
Consequently, upon refusal of the Bureau of Customs to pay, Hartford Fire Insurance Company filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila an action to recover P24,761.50 with legal interest plus P2,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs, alleging negligence either prior to discharge of the shipment on the part of either P.D. Marchessini & Co., Inc., and/or Delgado Shipping Agencies or Litonjua & Co., Inc., or negligence after discharge on the part of the Republic of the Philippines and/or Bureau of Customs and/or Customs Arrastre Service.
The Republic of the Philippines, Bureau of Customs and Customs Arrastre Service moved to dismiss on grounds of non-suability and non- compliance with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327, which required money claims to be filed before the Auditor General. Upon the other hand, Litonjua & Co., while admitting that SS "New Teh Hu" docked in Manila, denied ever receiving the cargo for transhipment from Hongkong to Manila and asserted a counterclaim for P2,500.00 as attorney’s fees.
Against the stand of the plaintiff, the Court of First Instance on December 17, 1964, ruled that the Republic may not be sued without first complying with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327; and, that as mere agencies of the Philippine Government, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service have no juridical capacity to be sued. The case was thus dismissed as regards only the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service. Later, upon motion of the defendants, the order of dismissal was reconsidered to include the Republic of the Philippines also.
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the plaintiff appealed to Us questioning the propriety of the dismissal of the case as to the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service.
The Republic of the Philippines, in operating the arrastre service through its agencies, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service, does so only as a necessary incident of its prime governmental function of taxation. Such a performance, for obvious reasons of public policy, does not amount to a waiver of its immunity from suit. 2
The claim, moreover, is a money claim which should have been filed in the office of the Auditor General in accordance with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327. Such a claim for a fixed amount based on fairly accessible papers and documents, does not strike Us as unliquidated in nature. 3
WHEREFORE, the order dismissing the action against the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Although SS "New Teh Hu" arrived in Manila on October 3, 1963, it proceeded to Thailand without unloading the cargo. It was only upon its return to Manila on October 29, 1963, that the vessel discharged the cargo to the custody of the Bureau of Customs, then operating the arrastre service.
The consignee, Maria M. Sarda who had insured the shipment with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 1 did not get delivery of the goods. As a result, she was paid P24,715.00 on the insurance by the Hartford Insurance Co. and the latter, as subrogee to the consignee, demanded from the Bureau of Customs recovery of said amount.
Consequently, upon refusal of the Bureau of Customs to pay, Hartford Fire Insurance Company filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila an action to recover P24,761.50 with legal interest plus P2,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs, alleging negligence either prior to discharge of the shipment on the part of either P.D. Marchessini & Co., Inc., and/or Delgado Shipping Agencies or Litonjua & Co., Inc., or negligence after discharge on the part of the Republic of the Philippines and/or Bureau of Customs and/or Customs Arrastre Service.
The Republic of the Philippines, Bureau of Customs and Customs Arrastre Service moved to dismiss on grounds of non-suability and non- compliance with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327, which required money claims to be filed before the Auditor General. Upon the other hand, Litonjua & Co., while admitting that SS "New Teh Hu" docked in Manila, denied ever receiving the cargo for transhipment from Hongkong to Manila and asserted a counterclaim for P2,500.00 as attorney’s fees.
Against the stand of the plaintiff, the Court of First Instance on December 17, 1964, ruled that the Republic may not be sued without first complying with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327; and, that as mere agencies of the Philippine Government, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service have no juridical capacity to be sued. The case was thus dismissed as regards only the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service. Later, upon motion of the defendants, the order of dismissal was reconsidered to include the Republic of the Philippines also.
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the plaintiff appealed to Us questioning the propriety of the dismissal of the case as to the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service.
The Republic of the Philippines, in operating the arrastre service through its agencies, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service, does so only as a necessary incident of its prime governmental function of taxation. Such a performance, for obvious reasons of public policy, does not amount to a waiver of its immunity from suit. 2
The claim, moreover, is a money claim which should have been filed in the office of the Auditor General in accordance with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327. Such a claim for a fixed amount based on fairly accessible papers and documents, does not strike Us as unliquidated in nature. 3
WHEREFORE, the order dismissing the action against the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. A foreign corporation authorized to do business in the Philippines.
2. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, L-23139, December 17, 1966.
3. Insurance Company of North America v. Republic of the Philippines, L-27517, September 15, 1967.
