SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968

THE LONDON ASSURANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. 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; RELIANCE BONDED WAREHOUSE and/or CARLOS TAN and DELGADO BROKERAGE CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

Agustin, Cruz & Associates for plaintiff-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for defendants-appellees Republic and Bureau of Customs.
Padilla Law Offices, Romulo E. Abasolo and Ramon A. Academia for defendants-appellees Delgado Brokerage Corporation, et al.

ANGELES, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

On November 4, 1964, herein plaintiff-appellant, the London Assurance, insurer-subrogee of a shipment of 22 skids electrolytic tinplate waste, filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of the sum of P7,235.63, the insured value of said shipment, for which Maritime Company of the Philippines issued Bill of Lading No. SF M-8 in the name of Polok, Winters & Company as shipper, and consigned to Consolidated Can Corporation of Mandaluyong, Rizal. Named defendants were the Republic of the Philippines and/or Bureau of Customs and/or Customs Arrastre Service, in their capacity as arrastre operators; the Reliance Customs Bonded Warehouse and/or Carlos Tan; and Delgado Brokerage Corporation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

While the private defendants filed their respective answers to the complaint, the Solicitor General moved to dismiss it - as to the State, because it is immune from suit; as to the Bureau of Customs and Customs Arrastre Service, on the ground that they are not juridical entities endowed with legal personality to sue or be sued.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Despite vigorous opposition on the part of the plaintiff, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. The insurance company has appealed insisting that the defendants arrastre operators discharge proprietary or non-governmental functions and are, therefore, suable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Following a series of similar cases on the subject, ¹ the instant appeal must fail. In the very first of these precedents, Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, supra, this Court has amply explained why a case like this should be dismissed with respect to the government and its entities, thus - "Although said arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of Customs, so that engaging in the same does not necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit. For otherwise, it could not perform its governmental function without necessarily exposing itself to suit. Sovereign immunity granted as to the end, should not be denied as to the necessary means to that end."chanrobles virtual law library

IN VIEW HEREOF, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs at this instance.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Fernando, JJ., concur.

¹Mobil Phil. Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, L-23139, Dec. 17, 1966; Equitable Insurance & Casualty Co., Inc. v. Smith Bell & Co. (Phil.), Inc., L-24383, Aug. 26, 1967; Ins. Co. of North America v. Republic of the Phil., et al., L-27515, Sept. 5, 1967; Phil. First Ins. Co., Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, et al., L-26951, Sept. 12, 1967.