SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-25515 July 24, 1967

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and/or REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Defendants-Appellees.

Ross, Selph, Salcedo, Del Rosario, Bito and Mia for plaintiff-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General and Felipe Cuison for defendants-appellees.

BENGZON, J.P., J.:chanrobles virtual law library

Arriving from San Francisco, the SS "Japan Bear" on March 3, 1963, discharged into the custody of the arrastre service in Manila operated by the Bureau of Customs, two (2) boxes of printed matters, viz., valve charts, and 128 cartons of electric street light controls and spicing tape, consigned to Manila Electric Company. Of the shipment, No two (2) cartons of electric street light controls worth P1,873.98 were not delivered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After demands for recovery of the loss were not satisfied, the Manila Electric Company filed a complaint before the City Court of Manila against the Customs Arrastre Service and/or Bureau of Customs and/or the Republic of the Philippines, and obtained a judgment in its favor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila, the defendants moved to dismiss, after which they answered, alleging non-suability. Subsequently, plaintiff amended its complaint to stress the allegations of defendants' capacity to sue and be sued and its prayer to hold defendants jointly and severally liable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After hearing, the Court of First Instance on November 4, 1965 dismissed the case for the reason that the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs (a mere agency of the Republic), and the Arrastre Service (a unit of the Bureau of Customs), may not be sued.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appeal to Us has been taken by the plaintiff on its belief that the Republic of the Philippines in its operation of the arrastre service through the Bureau of Customs, may be sued.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, L-23129, December 17, 1966, We already declared that as part of the governmental machinery, the Bureau of Customs, in operating the arrastre service, does so as an incident of a prime governmental function and as such may not be sued. The same holds true with the Republic of the Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on leave.