ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

These three cases involve one issue and subject: admiralty jurisdiction of
the courts of first instance. Besides identity of attorneys in all three, there
is identity of parties in the first two. In the third, the very defendants in
the first two cases raised the same issue.

L-15618.—Typical is the first. The ruling therein announced applies with
equal force to the others.

In the Manila court of first instance, to recover P1.078.33 as the value of
undelivered goods, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. sued Manila Port Service and/or
Manila Railroad alleging; (a) it had insured 180 cartons of cotton piece goods
shipped aboard the SS Pioneer Main from New York to Manila; (b) said goods
arrived at the Port of Manila on July 10, 1958, and were unloaded into the
custody of Manifa .Fort Service; (c) those were in turn delivered to the
consignee with short delivery and/or damages to said shipment in the amount of
approximately P1,078.33; (d) the shipper claimed, and thereafter received, from
plaintiff as insurer, the value of the loss; (e) “upon such payment, plaintiff
became subrogated to the shipper’s and/or consignee’s rights and interests; and
(f) defendants refused to pay plaintiff notwithstanding repeated demands.

Counsel for defendants moved to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, because
the amount demanded being much less than P2,000.00, the case belonged to the
Municipal Court under Sec 88 of Republic Act 296. Opposing the motion, plaintiff
took the stand “that the subject matter of the complaint, per allegations
contained therein, arose from admiralty and maritime commerce, and consequently”
pertained to the admiralty jurisdiction of the court of first instance,
irrespective of the value in controversy.

Granting the motion, the court dismissed the suit, declaring itself without
jurisdiction.

Plaintiff appealed. In support of its side, it invokes the decision in
International Harvester Co. vs. Aragon and Yaras & Co., 84 Phil.
364, wherein this Court held that the suit of the consignee agamst the sea
carrier for damages to goods transported over the seas aboard a vessel involved
maritime commerce and jurisdiction. But such doctrine is not applicable, because
the suit here is directed against the arrastre service for damages presumably
suffered after the carriage by sea had ended at the Manila pier upon
delivery of the goods to the Manila Port Service. The rule applicable to the
case may be found in Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Delgado Brothers,
Inc., (107 Phil., 779; 58 Off. Gaz. [5] 899) i.e., after the briefs in these
three cases had been duly submitted. That was a suit against the former operator
of the arrastre service of the Manila Port, for short delivery of cargo it had
previously received from abroad ex. MS Pleasantville. The question of admiralty
jurisdiction having been raised—value of monetary demand being less than
P2,000.00-this Court held the matter did not refer to admiralty jurisdiction.
Through Mr. Justice Concepcion it explained,

“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 $g its possession,
subject to such qualifications as may have 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, iiot 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 aforementioned sixty eight (63) cartons of paint; and (2) in the
negative case, the amount of indemnity due the plaintiff therefor. The
determination of these questions does not require the application of any
maritime law and cannot affect either navigation or maritime commerce. The
foreign origin of the goods is—under the attending circumstances— immaterial to
the law applicable to this case or the rights of the parties herein,, or the
procedure for the settlement of their dispute.”

Note specially that this is not a suit against the carrier that transported
the goods by sea.^[1] It is rather a
proceeding against the operator of the arrastre service that received the goods
from said carrier and failed to discharge its obligation to deliver them to the
consignee.^[2] There is nothing pertaining
to admiralty in the discharge of such obligation of the arrastre operator.

Such being the case, the court below took the correct view in dismissing the
suit.

L-16000; L-16116.—These other two casea for amounts leas than 1*2,000.00 were
also filed in the Manila court of first instance. Involving similar claims, they
were likewise ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff, to repeat,
asserted admiralty.

In view of the foregoing, the dismissal orders in the three cases are hereby
affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J. B.
L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Orders affirmed.

---

^[1] Insurance Co. vs. Phil. Forts
Terminal, 97 Phil., 288.

^[2] The liability of the Manila Port
Service is governed by the Management Contract it entered into with the Bureau
of Customs, pursuant to Act 3003 as amended by Republic Act 140, the pertinent
portion of which reads as follows:

“Sec. 13. Said Bureau of Customs is hereby authorized, whenever in its
judgment the receiving, handling, custody, and delivery of merchandise intended
for importation or exportation in the port of Manila and other ports of entry
can be carried on with greater efficiency. * * * to make contracts with such
persons, associations, or corporations for the receiving, handling, custody, and
delivery of merchandise in the port of Manila and other ports of entry, which
contracts shall contain conditions regarding access to the customs Premises,
subject to the control of the customs authorities, charges for the services
rendered by the contractor, security to be given for the efficient handling,
custody, and delivery ot the merchandise and e prompt payment of all losses
thereof, as may be agreed upon etween the Bureau of Customs and the contractor,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance.” (Italics ours.)