SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-25662 July 21, 1967

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Defendant-Appellee.

Quasha, Asperilla, Blanco, Zafra and Tayag for plaintiff-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General P. P. de Castro and Solicitor O. C. Fernandez for defendant-appellee.

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

On May 10, 1963, two (2) boxes of truck spare parts were discharged in good order condition by the SS "Granville" into the custody of the Bureau of Customs, the then operator of the arrastre service. Of the two boxes, only one was delivered by the Bureau of Customs to the consignee. The Insurance Company of North America, as insurer of the cargo, paid the consignee. P3,634.16, for the loss of one box. As subrogee of the consignee, the Insurance Company of North America filed before the City Court of Manila a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines and the Bureau of Customs for the recovery of the amount paid by it. Recovery was granted. Upon appeal, the Court of First Instance of Manila reversed the city court and dismissed the complaint for the reason that the suit is really one against the Republic of the Philippines which may not be sued without its consent, because the Bureau of Customs is but a mere agency of the Republic and has no capacity to sue or be sued.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Insisting on the suability of the Republic of the Philippines, as arrastre operator through the Bureau of Customs, the Insurance Company of North America appealed to Us.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We have settled this matter squarely before. The Bureau of Customs is part of the governmental machinery and operated the arrastre service as an incident of a prime governmental function. As such, it is immune from suit.^* With this consideration, We find it superfluous to discuss the other matters advanced by the appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is 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.

^*Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, L-23139, Dec. 17, 1966.