Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21021. May 27, 1966.]

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., MANILA PORT SERVICE AND MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.

William H. Quasha & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

D. F. Macaranas, and A.M. Abrenica for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; ADMIRALTY; DISMISSAL OF ADMIRALTY ASPECT OF CASE DOES NOT DEPRIVE COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ITS JURISDICTION. — The subsequent dismissal of the admiralty aspect of the case against the carrying vessel or its operator (leaving, as the only justiciable issue, the liability of arrastre operator for the value of the missing goods worth less than P5,000) did not bring the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal court, nor deprive the court of first instance of the jurisdiction it had acquired over the case. Jurisdiction once acquired, continues until the termination of the case, and is not affected by the subsequent alteration of the facts or of the applicable law on the matter.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


The facts and the nature of this case as set forth in the brief of the appellant and accepted as substantially correct by the appellee, 1 are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc., Manila, was the consignee of 200 pieces of Vibrator Motors contained in seventeen (17) cartons loaded on board the vessel SS ‘Pioneer Moor’ on or about July 28, 1960 under Bill of Lading No. 42 issued at New York, with an invoice value of $1,320.00 C & F Manila. The carrying vessel arrived at Manila and purportedly discharged its cargo into the custody of the Manila Port Service, arrastre operator for the Port of Manila. The Manila Port Service, on the other hand, alleges that three (3) cartons were not discharged by the vessel. When delivery was taken of the cargo by consignee’s broker, five (5) cartons of 12 Vibrator Motors each and one (1) carton of 8 Vibrator Motors, or a total of 68 motors, were missing and remained undelivered, while one (1) Vibrator Motor was also found missing among the delivered cartons, thus making an aggregate shortage of 69 Vibrator Motors with an invoice value of $465.88.

"Cargo was insured with plaintiff for the sum of $1,500.00 against the risk of loss and damage. By virtue of the loss, claims were filed against the carrying vessel, the arrastre operator and the plaintiff for the insured value of the lost merchandise. Upon demand, plaintiff in due course paid the claim in the sum of P1,042.76, thereby becoming subrogated unto the assured’s rights of recovery for the loss.

"Claims filed with defendants having been refused, plaintiff brought the instant suit against the carrying vessel and the arrastre operator and its mother corporation, the Manila Railroad Company, alleging that lose occurred either while the cargo was still in the custody and possession of the carrying vessel prior to delivery to the arrastre operator or after the cargo was already received by the arrastre operator, alternatively. While suit was brought in the alternative (in view of the uncertainty where exactly the loss was sustained), the prayer of the complaint however seeks for judgment to be rendered against both defendants United States Lines Company and Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company, ‘jointly and severally’ for the loss.

"Pending adjudication of the case on the merits, plaintiff, having previously obtained settlement with the carrying vessel, moved to dismiss the complaint as against defendant United States Lines Company on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties. Acting upon the motion, the Lower Court dismissed the case against defendant United States Lines Company in its Order dated December 2, 1961 (Record on Appeal, pp. 12-15). In the wake of the dismissal of defendant United States Lines Company from the complaint, defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company then raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Lower Court to further entertain the case as against the arrastre operator in view of the removal of the admiralty ‘aspect’ from the case, and considering that the demand is much less than the jurisdictional amount of P5,000.00.

"After the memoranda of the parties were submitted, the Lower Court, in its Order dated October 31, 1962, dismissed the instant case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, this appeal.

The issue herein presented is not a novel one. In a case recently decided, 2 this Court, passing upon the same question arising out of identical set of facts, ruled that the subsequent dismissal of the admiralty aspect of the case against the carrying vessel or its operator (leaving, as the only justiciable issue, the liability of the arrastre operator for the value of the missing goods worth less than P5,000.00) did not bring the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal court, nor deprive the court of first instance of the jurisdiction it had acquired over the case. This is based on the established doctrine that jurisdiction (of the court) once acquired, continues until the termination of the case, 3 and is not affected by the subsequent alteration of the facts 4 or of the applicable law on the matter. 5

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal of the lower court is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to it for further proceedings. Without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, J.B.L. Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See page 1, Appellee’s brief.

2. Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. Manila Railroad Company, Et Al., G.R. No. L-20875, April 30, 1966.

3. Tuvera v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-20547, April 30, 1965; States Marine Corp. v. Cebu Seamen’s Association, G.R. No. L-12444, Feb. 28, 1963; Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, 40 Off. Gaz., No. 6, 3027.

4. Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. Manila Railroad Co., supra.

5. Sayoc v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-8502, November 29, 1956.




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






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.