INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

On January 24, 1957 the appellant, Insurance Company of North
America, a foreign insurance corporation duly licensed to do business
in the Philippines, commenced the present action (Civil Case No. 31655)
in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover from Delgado
Brothers, Inc., as arrastre contractor for the Port of Manila, the sum
of P368.38 representing the value of an alleged short delivery of 14.3
kilograms of dental cream flavor. The complaint alleged that on or
about November 17, 1955, the Colgate Palmolive Company shipped at New
York, U.S.A., for Manila, Philippines, on board the SS Femfield of the
Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., and consigned to the Colgate Palmolive
Philippines, Inc., Manila, Philippines, “23 drums of dental cream
flavor weighing 5,188 kilos” for which the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc.
issued Bill of Lading No. 70. The shipment was insured by the consignee
with the appellant. Upon its arrival at the Port of Manila on December
25, 1955, the shipment was unloaded and placed in the custody of the
appellee who, in turn, delivered it to C. M. Cansipit, Inc.—customs
broker—”short of from Drums Nos. 5978, 5996 and 5931, the aggregate
amount of 14.3 kilograms of dental cream flavor, with a total value of
$182.82 or at P201.50 per $100.00, P368.38″, for delivery—as it was
actually delivered to the consignee. When the latter filed its claim
for the loss, appellant, as insurer, paid the same, and subsequently
demanded reimbursement from the appellee. As the latter refused to pay
or make the reimbursement, J the present action was instituted.

Appellee’s answer denied the material allegations of the complaint
and alleged several special defenses. However, on December 18, 1957
appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
action was not one in admiralty and was therefore within the original
exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila, as the amount
involved was only F368.38. After due hearing on this motion, the court
dismissed the case, with costs against appellant. Hence this appeal.

This case is on all fours with Insurance Company of North America
vs. Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad Company (G. R. No.
L-16573, promulgated November 29, 1961) and Macondray & Company,
Inc. vs. Delgado Brothers, Inc. (107 Phil., 779). In the latter we
said, inter alia:

“The case at bar does not deal with any maritime
matter or with the administration and application of any maritime law.
As custodian of the sixty-eight (68) cartons of paints it had received
from the MS Pleasantville, it was defendant’s duty, like that of any
ordinary depositary, to take good care of said goods and to turn the
same over to the party entitled to its possession, subject to such
qualification as may validly been imposed in the contract between the
parties concerned. Such duty on the part of the defendant would be the
same if the final destination of the goods were Manila not Iloilo, and
the goods had not been imported from another state. The only issues
raised in the pleadings are (1) whether or not defendant had fully
discharged its obligation to deliver the aforesaid sixty-eight (68)
cartons of paint; and (2), in the negative case, the amount of
indemnity due the plaintiff therefor. The determination of those
questions does not require the application of any maritime law and
cannot affect either navigation or maritime commerce. The foreign
origin of the goods if—under the attending circumstances—immaterial to
the law applicable to this case or the rights of the parties therein,
or the pro. cedure for the settlement of their disputes. Indeed, it is well settled that—

” ‘In case of controversy involving both maritime and non-naritime subject matter, where the principal matter involved belongs to the jurisdiction of a court of common law or of equity, admiralty
will not take cognizance of incidental maritime matters. connected
therewith but will relegate the whole controversy to the appropriate
tribunal.‘ (2 CJ.S. 66)” (Italics supplied).

x x x

” ‘To give admiralty jurisdiction over a contract as maritime, such contract must relate to the trade and business of the sea; it must be essentially and fully maritime in its character;
it must provide for maritime services, maritime transactions, or
maritime casualties.’ (The James T. Furber, 129 Fed. 808, cited in 66
L.R.A. 212; Italics supplied).”

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.