Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-25338 March 28, 1969
UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. defendants-appellees.
Romeo Abad for plaintiff-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for defendants-appellees.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Direct appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 62264, dismissing, upon motion, appellant's complaint against the Republic and the Bureau of Customs Arrastre Service, on the ground of non-suability of defendants.
Subrogated to the rights of the consignee, Silicons Manufacturing Company, the appellant, Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd., brought action to recover P42,370.30, as the value of 135 coils of copper wire unloaded from the vessel "Eastern Star" on 27 September 1964 and allegedly lost while in possession of the Customs Arrastre Service by negligence of the latter. The defendants pleaded (a) that the complaint was based on a money claim against the Republic, which is immune from suit without its consent, neither the Bureau of Customs nor the Customs Arrastre Service being juridical persons that can be parties to any suit, but mere dependencies of the Republic; and (b) that, under section 902 of the "Tariff and Customs Code, the Government assumes no legal responsibility in respect to the safekeeping of articles stored in any customs or bonded warehouse". The court below having upheld defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff insurance company appealed to this Court.
The issue of the Republic's non-suability for acts of the Customs Arrastre personnel, raised in the appeal, is not new.lâwphi1.ñet It was extensively considered and discussed in Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, 17 December 1966, 18 SCRA 1121, where the Republic's immunity was upheld, and the doctrine has been uniformly reiterated repeatedly since then. The cases are collated in the annotations at 18 SCRA, pages 1127, et. seq.; 21 SCRA 428. See also Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, L-26947, 26 December 1967, and numerous cases therein cited.
The principles and rulings of the previous cases equally govern the one at bar. There is nothing here that would justify a deviation from a doctrine so uniformly and firmly established.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
