Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1971 > January 1971 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27693 January 29, 1971 - RAMCAR, INC. v. RAFAEL SUMADCHAT:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-27693. January 29, 1971.]

RAMCAR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAFAEL SUMADCHAT, operator of the R. Sumadchat Customs Bonded Warehouse No. 258, Defendant-Appellee.

De Santos & Delfino, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ricardo P. Tongoy, for Defendant-Appellee.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Plaintiff, Ramcar, Inc., seeks the reversal of an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing the former’s complaint "without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file an appropriate action against the proper party."cralaw virtua1aw library

Stripped of non-essentials, it is alleged in the aforementioned complaint that, on or about December 9, 1963, a shipment of 1,390 ingots of 7%, antemonial lead, imported by the plaintiff from Jack Hilton (Metals) Pty. Ltd. of Australia, had arrived at Pier 9, South Harbor, Manila; that, without plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, 601 ingots valued at P16,000 were taken by representatives of the customs warehouse of defendant Rafael Sumadchat; and that, upon demand made by the plaintiff, defendant not only refused to deliver said 601 ingots, but, also, demanded payment of P7,270.85 "supposedly representing storage and other charges due to him as customs warehouseman," despite plaintiff’s offer to pay said charges under protest. It is prayed in the complaint that the defendant be ordered to deliver said ingots to the plaintiff, or, else, to pay the sum of P16,000, as the value thereof, with interest at the legal rate, in addition to attorney’s fees.

Upon being summoned, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. In support of his motion, the defendant averred that, having been imported into the Philippines the ingots in question were under the exclusive and absolute possession, custody, control and disposition of the Bureau of Customs, pursuant to the Tariff and Custom Code, Republic Act No. 1937, particularly sections 1201, 1202, 1204 and 1206 thereof; that, pursuant to section 604 of said "Code, "the Bureau of Customs" moreover, "shall, for customs purposes, have exclusive control, direction and management of custom-houses, warehouses . . . and other premises in the respective ports of entry . . ." ; that, by Declaration of Abandonment No. 254-65, made pursuant to section 1802 of the aforementioned Code, the Bureau of Customs had, on December 13, 1965, declared said lead ingots abandoned; that said lead ingots were sold by the Bureau of Customs at public auction, on January 27, 1966, under Sale Lot No. 26; and that, as a consequence, said lead ingots were delivered, on February 7, 1966, to the buyer thereof, one Marcelo S. Cruz, in whose favor the Bureau of Customs had authorized the release thereof "through a gate pass issued" by said office.

Acting upon said motion, the lower court dismissed the complaint "without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file an appropriate action against the proper party." Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff who maintains: (1) that, it being conceded that the lead ingots in question had been deposited in defendant’s warehouse, defendant is under obligation to deliver the goods to the plaintiff, or, else, to pay the value thereof, plus damages; and (2) that, in passing upon the motion to dismiss, the trial court had no "right to consider facts not alleged and/or discernible from the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

Plaintiff has not contested, however, the facts upon which the motion was predicated. 1 Pursuant thereto, upon arrival at the port of Manila, coming from Australia, from which they had been imported by the plaintiff, the lead ingots in question were by law under the possession, custody, control and disposition of the Bureau of Customs. They were stored by the Customs Arrastre Service — an agent of said Bureau — in defendant’s warehouse, which is, likewise, subject to the control, direction and management of said office. The latter, in turn, in the exercise of its functions under the law, subsequently declared the lead ingots abandoned, later sold them at public auction to the highest bidder, Marcelo S. Cruz, and then caused the lead ingots to be delivered to him.

Considering that there is no contractual relation between, the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the latter had held and later released the lead ingots under the authority and by order of the Bureau of Customs, the validity of the acts of which has not been impugned, it is clear that plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant.

This appeal being patently devoid of merit, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with treble costs against plaintiff-appellant, Ramcar, Inc. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Ruperto v. Fernando, 83 Phil. 943, 944-945; Canite v. Madrigal, L-17836, Aug. 30, 1962; Saguinsin v. Lindayag, L-17759, Dec. 17, 1962; Solancho v. Ramos, L-20408, April 27, 1967.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1971 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31004 January 8, 1971 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28347 January 20, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAN PROVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28203 January 22, 1971 - ELEUTERIO BACARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Fifth Division), ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 163-J January 28, 1971 - FRANCISCO S. DIZON v. JUAN DE BORJA

  • A.C. No. 830 January 28, 1971 - WENCESLAO ZUBIRI v. ATTY. CANDIDO JUMAPAO

  • G.R. No. L-23383 January 28, 1971 - IN RE: YAO MUN TEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28153 January 28, 1971 - U.P. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29208 January 28, 1971 - IN RE: KAW SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29406 January 28, 1971 - PNB v. DONATO D. CABUGSA

  • G.R. No. L-29416 January 28, 1971 - CELSO VALERA v. COURT OF APPEALS (FOURTH DIVISION), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29785 January 28, 1971 - MANILA STEVEDORING & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (PTG-WO) v. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30424 January 28, 1971 - IN RE: BENITO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-32626 January 28, 1971 - POLICARPIA TIU v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27693 January 29, 1971 - RAMCAR, INC. v. RAFAEL SUMADCHAT

  • G.R. No. L-30932 January 29, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 119 January 30, 1971 - PEDRO S. CASTILLO v. VICENTE BULLECER

  • G.R. No. L-20264 January 30, 1971 - CONSUELO S. DE GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20388 January 30, 1971 - TOMAS C. AGUADOR, ET AL. v. MALCOLM S. ENERIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20866 January 30, 1971 - IN RE: LORETO LEE ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21144 January 30, 1971 - AMADO A. YATCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-22230 January 30, 1971 - MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22302 January 30, 1971 - IN RE: CHIU TEK YE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22328 January 30, 1971 - VICENTE A. RACAZA, ET AL. v. ROBERTO DE OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. L-22958 January 30, 1971 - ESTRELLA BENIPAYO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. JUAN O. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24102 January 30, 1971 - JUANITO SORIA v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-25894 January 30, 1971 - QUIRINO BOLAÑOS, ET AL. v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-29959-60 January 30, 1971 - THE POLICE COMMISSION, ET AL. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25291 January 30, 1971 - THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., ET AL. v. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25700 January 30, 1971 - IN RE: JOSE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25943 January 30, 1971 - MANILA CORDAGE COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27392 January 30, 1971 - PABLO CATURA, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27786 January 30, 1971 - NATALIA FERNANDO, ET AL. v. ANASTACIO FRANCO

  • G.R. No. L-28093 January 30, 1971 - BASILIA BERDIN VDA. DE CONSUEGRA, ET AL. v. GOV’T. SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28235 January 30, 1971 - JOSE G. LOPEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28482 January 30, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN BRIOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28565 January 30, 1971 - FRANCISCO LAHORA, ET AL. v. EMILIO DAYANGHIRANG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28706 January 30, 1971 - IN RE: MACDUFFIE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28863 January 30, 1971 - IN RE: SOCORRO S. PAULINO v. NICASIO A. BELEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29043 January 30, 1971 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL. v. ANDRES M. VINUYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29204 January 30, 1971 - ALEGAR CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29421 January 30, 1971 - LINO ARTATES, ET AL. v. DANIEL URBI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30077 January 30, 1971 - ROLANDO GEOTINA v. BROADWAY & CO., HONGKONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30026 January 30, 1971 - MARIO GUMABON, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-30363 January 30, 1971 - RAYMUNDO BAESA, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31008 January 30, 1971 - RESTITUTO BINABAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.