Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > March 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27189 March 28, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MAERSK LINE FAR EAST SERVICE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-27189. March 28, 1969.]

FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAERSK LINE FAR EAST SERVICE through its agent CIA GENERAL DE TABACOS, ET AL., Defendants, CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellant.

Camacho, Zapra and Associate for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ross, Selph Salcedo, Del Rosario, Bito and Misa for defendant Maersk Line Far East Service.

Felipe T . Cuison and Ben C . Jurado for defendant-appellant Customs Arrastre Service.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; IMMUNITY OF STATE FROM SUIT; CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE ENJOYS SAID IMMUNITY. — The present appeal interposed by the Customs Arrastre Service poses only one issue of law — non-suability of the State. Although this appeal was interposed by the Customs Arrastre Service, it is considered an appeal of the Republic of the Philippines because the former is merely a unit of the Bureau of Customs (a bureau under the Department of Finance), with no personality of its own apart from the National Government. The precedent-setting ruling first enunciated in Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, which was subsequently affirmed and reaffirmed in at least twenty cases, the latest of which is Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines v. Republic of the Philippines and/or Bureau of Customs, to the effect that arrastre functions being a necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of Customs, the same could not be liable to suit without its consent, still controls in the case at bar.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PLAINTIFF’S REMEDY FOUND IN ACT 3083 AND COMMONWEALTH ACT 327. — The remedy of the plaintiff may be found in the provisions of Act 3083 and Commonwealth Act 327 which (a) permit the presentation of money claims, such as the one here sued on by the plaintiff, to the Auditor General for adjudication, (b) set forth the requisites to be fulfilled, and (c) outline the procedure to be followed.


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


The plaintiff Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, as subrogee of the consignee American Asiatic Distributors, Inc., filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the alternative defendants Maersk Line Far East Service (thru its agent Cia General de Tabacos) and/or Customs Arrastre Service and/or Bureau of Customs and/or Republic of the Philippines, for the recovery of the sum of P5,755.22 representing the value of seven packages of pipe fittings which were allegedly lost while in the absolute control, custody and safekeeping of either the Maersk Line Far East Service or the Customs Arrastre Service, and which the latter failed to deliver to the consignee, plus legal interest, attorney’s fees and costs. On September 27, 1966 the court a quo rendered judgment for the plaintiff and against the Customs Arrastre Service, but dismissed the case "with respect to defendant Maersk Line Far East Service."cralaw virtua1aw library

The present appeal interposed by the Customs Arrastre Service poses only one issue of law — non-suability of the State. Parenthetically, although this appeal was interposed by the Customs Arrastre Service, we consider it as an appeal of the Republic of the Philippines because the former is merely a unit of the Bureau of Customs (a bureau under the Department of Finance), with no personality of its own apart from the National Government. 1

Both parties failed to file their respective briefs — the appellant, due to some supervening circumstances (that is, the chief of the legal division of the Customs Arrastre Service filed the printed record on appeal without coursing the same through the Office of the Solicitor General; the notice to prepare the appellant’s brief was sent to the Customs Arrastre Service; the special attorney of the Office of the Solicitor General connected with the Customs Arrastre Service resigned and the preparation of the brief was not endorsed to the Office of the Solicitor General; and neither was the matter referred to the latter office when the legal division of the Customs Arrastre Service was abolished in 1967), and the appellee, due to some unexplained reason.

Nevertheless, we are of the view that the absence of briefs should not deter us from deciding this appeal. Indeed, in a case on all fours with the one at bar, this Court proceeded to render decision "without awaiting the briefs of the parties, in order to save them and this Court needless expense of time, money and effort." 2

We now come to the resolution of the sole legal issue.

The precedent-setting ruling first enunciated in Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, 3 which was subsequently affirmed and reaffirmed in at least twenty cases, the latest of which is Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines v. Republic of the Philippines and/or Bureau of Customs, 4 still controls in the case at bar. We quote from Mobil:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The fact that a non-corporate government entity performs a function proprietary in nature does not necessarily result in its being suable. If said non-governmental function is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity.

x       x       x


"The Bureau of Customs, to repeat, is part of the Department of Finance (Sec. 81, Rev. Adm. Code), with no personality of its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental, that of assessing and collecting the lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties (Sec. 602, R.A. 1937). To this function, arrastre service is a necessary incident.

x       x       x


"Clearly, therefore, 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.

x       x       x


"It must be remembered that statutory provisions waiving State immunity from suit are strictly construed and that waiver of immunity, being in derogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred . . . From the provision authorizing the Bureau of Customs to lease arrastre operations to private parties, We see no authority to sue the said Bureau in the instances where it undertakes to conduct said operation itself. The Bureau of Customs, acting as part of the machinery of the national government in the operation of the arrastre service, pursuant to express legislative mandate and as a necessary incident of its prime governmental function, is immune from suit, there being no statute to the contrary."cralaw virtua1aw library

The remedy of the plaintiff may be found in the provisions of Act 3083 and Commonwealth Act 327 which (a) permit the presentation of money claims, such as the one here sued on by the plaintiff, to the Auditor General for adjudication, (b) set forth the requisites to be fulfilled, and (c) outline the procedure to be followed. 5

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed, and the complaint is hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, L-23139, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 1120.

2. Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines v. American Pioneer Line, Et Al., L-28651, February 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 831.

3. See note 1.

4. L-29362, Sept. 27, 1968, 25 SCRA 231.

5. See note 4.




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






March-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26430 March 11, 1969 - ROSA GONZALEZ VDA. DE PALANCA, ET AL. v. CHUA KENG KIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29588 March 18, 1969 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26443 March 25, 1969 - MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26770 & L-26771 March 25, 1969 - SAN ILDEFONSO ELECTRIC PLANT, INC. v. BALIUAG ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24985 March 27, 1969 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. BERTITO D. DADIVAS

  • G.R. No. L-24399 March 28, 1969 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TEMPONGKO

  • G.R. Nos. L-24634 & L-24635 March 28, 1969 - UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24699 March 28, 1969 - ABIGUEL REYES-GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-24775 March 28, 1969 - MARIANO C. ATEGA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-24982 March 28, 1969 - BERNARDINA FLORENDO v. BONIFACIA FLORENDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25333 March 28, 1969 - CONSOLIDATED WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25338 March 28, 1969 - UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25439 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: CHUA TAN CHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25555 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MAGCAMIT

  • G.R. No. L-25618 March 28, 1969 - ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL. v. SIMEON GOPENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25878 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26153 March 28, 1969 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26487 March 28, 1969 - CONSTANTINA DE AGRAVIADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26572 March 28, 1969 - MORALES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26932 March 28, 1969 - RUPERTO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26953 March 28, 1969 - ZENAIDA MEDINA v. VENANCIA L. MAKABALI

  • G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969 - LUCIO V. GARCIA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27100 March 28, 1969 - GERMAN S. MONTESA v. FELIPE ONOFRE DIRECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27120 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27189 March 28, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MAERSK LINE FAR EAST SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27231 March 28, 1969 - ALFONSO VISITACION v. VICTOR MANIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28113 March 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALABANG, ET AL. v. PANGANDAPUN BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28734 March 28, 1969 - EMETERIO A. RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29199 March 28, 1969 - CLENIO L. ONDONA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29343 March 28, 1969 - FELIPE DE GUZMAN v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29610 March 28, 1969 - ALIM BALINDONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29458 March 28, 1969 - VIRGINIA F. PEREZ v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29684 March 28, 1969 - ARACELI V. MALAG v. RAMON DE LOS CIENTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29814 March 28, 1969 - SANTOS ANDAL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29894 March 28, 1969 - JESUS W. LAZATIN v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30058 March 28, 1969 - LUIS G. DE CASTRO v. JULIAN G. GINETE, ET AL.

  • Adm.Case No. 598 March 28, 1969 - AURORA SORIANO DELES v. VICENTE E. ARAGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20017 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: LEON TE POOT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21213 & L-21214 March 28, 1969 - GABRIEL ZARI, ET AL. v. JOSE R. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21291 March 28, 1969 - PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21528 & L-21529 March 28, 1969 - ROSAURO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21664 March 28, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANOLO L. MADDELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21953 March 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION GATIOAN v. SIXTO GAFFUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22007 March 28, 1969 - NATIONAL MIRROR FACTORY v. ISIDRA SUNGA VDA. DE ANURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22094 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TATLONGHARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22187 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO MAISUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22619 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: EMMANUEL LAI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22687 March 28, 1969 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22675 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PACIFIC COMMISSION HOUSE

  • G.R. No. L-22706 March 28, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, ET AL. v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22784 March 28, 1969 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23253 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: PACITA CHUA v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23591 March 28, 1969 - LEONCIO YU LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23654 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23792 March 28, 1969 - MODESTA JIMENEZ VDA. DE NOCETE v. PILAR OIRA

  • G.R. No. L-23942 March 28, 1969 - CARMEN DEVEZA, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.