You're currently signed in as:
User
CONTINUE TO LAWYERLY APP
Digest Add to Casebook
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c466f?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c466f?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c466f}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-25515, Jul 24, 1967 ]

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE +

DECISION

127 Phil. 162

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

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE AND/OR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND/OR REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

D E C I S I O N

BENGZON, J.P., J.:

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, two (2) cartons of electric street light controls worth P1,873.98 were not delivered.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion C.J., and Dizon, J., are on official leave.
tags