Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1972 > April 1972 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26287 April 27, 1972 - CHAMPION AUTO SUPPLY CO., INC. v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-26287. April 27, 1972.]

CHAMPION AUTO SUPPLY CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, in its capacity as operator of the Customs Arrastre Service, Defendants-Appellees.

San Juan, Laig & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Felipo T . Cuison, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


POLITICAL LAW; STATE IMMUNITY; BUREAU OF CUSTOMS IMMUNE FROM SUITS IN OPERATION OF ARRASTRE SERVICE; CASE OF MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC. VS. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE. — This appeal involving a complaint against defendant Customs Arrastre Service for recovery of the value of the goods lost while in said defendant’s custody, cannot prosper in view of the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. In Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service (L-23139, December 17, 1966) this Court held: "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 necessary incident of its prime governmental functions, is immune from suit, there being no statute to the contrary.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 60371, dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence to support a judgment against the defendant.

On March 25, 1965 the plaintiff, Champion Auto Supply Company, Inc., filed a complaint in the court a quo against the Bureau of Customs in its capacity as operator of the Customs Arrastre Service in the Port of Manila, alleging inter alia: that on or about September 14, 1963 the SS "Yakal" of the Philippine Ace Line took on board at Yokohama, Japan, a shipment of eight (8) bundles of cone and oil pump assembly consigned to the plaintiff; that the vessel arrived at the port of Manila on September 27, 1963 and discharged said shipment, complete and in good order, into the custody of the defendant Customs Arrastre Service; that due to the inexcusable negligence of the defendant three (3) packages were lost and two (2) bundles were short-delivered, pilfered and/or lost, causing damages to the plaintiff in the sum of P10,094.25; and that notwithstanding repeated demands, the defendant failed and refused to pay for the loss thus sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff prayed that the defendant be ordered to pay the said amount, with legal interest thereon, and the sum of P2,500.00 as attorney’s fees.

The defendant denied the material allegations in the complaint and set forth several special and/or affirmative defenses, among which are that it cannot be sued without its consent and that the court a quo had no jurisdiction to hear the case, which involved a money claim against the government, it appearing that the requirements under Act No. 3083, as amended, had not been complied with.

After the plaintiff presented its evidence the defendant submitted the case for decision and moved for its dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Holding that the plaintiff failed to discharge its burden of proving that the shipment had been delivered complete and in good order into the custody of the defendant Customs Arrastre Service by presenting the corresponding cargo or tally sheets, the trial court granted the motion for dismissal. The plaintiff moved to reconsider but was turned down; hence, this appeal.

We need not go into the errors assigned by the appellant involving the merits of its claim and of the appellee’s defenses. This appeal cannot prosper in view of the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. In Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, L-23139, December 17, 1966 (18 SCRA 1120), this Court held: "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 functions, is immune from suit, there being no statute to the contrary." This ruling has been reiterated in no less than forty cases decided by this Court.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed without pronouncement as to costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





April-1972 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24245 April 11, 1972 - LEONOR FARRALES v. CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25755 April 11, 1972 - SUPREME INVESTMENT CORP. v. ENGINEERING EQUIP., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26112 April 11, 1972 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. JAIME DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26971 April 11, 1972 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-30632-33 April 11, 1972 - CALTEX FILIPINO MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASSO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29189 April 11, 1972 - VICTOR D. MENDOZA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31209 April 11, 1972 - MARC DONNELLY v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33355 April 11, 1972 - FRANCISCO BELLEZA, ET AL. v. DIMSON FARMS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34427 April 11, 1972 - ZAFIRO RESPICIO v. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 814 April 11, 1972 - IN RE COMPLAINT OF TERESITA MERCADO v. ALMARIO T. AMADOR

  • G.R. No. L-29819 April 14, 1972 - CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33095 April 19, 1972 - MERCEDES T. SONORA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO A. TONGOY, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 173-J April 27, 1972 - VICENTA A. CANLAS v. Hon. VALERIANO DEL VALLE

  • Adm. Case No. 230-J April 27, 1972 - JESUS C. BANAWA v. Hon. FERNANDO BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-18956 April 27, 1972 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARSMAN DEV. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23096 April 27, 1972 - MARTIN NERY, ET AL. v. ROSARIO LORENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34082 April 27, 1972 - HI CEMENT CORP. v. PRICE CONTROL COUNCIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24968 April 27, 1972 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC. v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26287 April 27, 1972 - CHAMPION AUTO SUPPLY CO., INC. v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-26668 April 27, 1972 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DIMANA

  • G.R. No. L-26730 April 27, 1972 - ANITA JAMELO v. FEDERICO SERFINO

  • G.R. No. L-27075 April 27, 1972 - EASTERN PLYWOOD CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-28405 April 27, 1972 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO URRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29340 April 27, 1972 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO SALES

  • G.R. No. L-29157 April 27, 1972 - FAUSTINO LUCAS, ET AL. v. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29580 April 27, 1972 - IN RE: MACARIO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-30612 April 27, 1972 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ALISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 32221-38 April 27, 1972 - DOMINGO MUÑOZ, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN C. BAGASAO, ET AL.