FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND/OR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company insured an imported shipment of 156 packages of electric
transformers and parts, consigned of General Electric Company, Philippines.  The
cargo arrived in Manila on board SS “Pioneer Mill" on April 30, 1963 and was delivered into the custody of the Bureau of Customs in good order condition.  The latter however delivered only 150
packages, less 6 packages worth P3,630.97.  The consignee laid claim against the Bureau of Customs. 
Upon failure of the Bureau of Customs to pay, Firearm’s Fund
Insurance Company paid the consignee its claim.

On July 31, 1964, the insurance
company as subrogee to the consignee, filed before
the City Court of Manila a complaint (Civil Case No. 60812) for the recovery of the aforementioned sum of
P3,630.97 with legal interest, against the Republic of
the Philippines as arrastre operator and the Bureau
of Customs as a unit through which the Republic operates.  On March
3, 1965, the City Court decided in plaintiff’s favor.  On
appeal, the Court of First Instance of Manila, on January 26, 1966, also decided against defen­dants,
ordering them to pay P3,630.97, despite their allegations
of non-liability and assertion of immunity from suit.

The Republic has appealed
to Us, pleading, among others, immunity from suit and
non-compliance with the procedure
set forth under Act 3083 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 327.

The non-suability of the Republic must be upheld.  In Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v.
Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs,
L-23139, December 17, 1966, We enunciated the doctrine
that the Republic of the
Philippines as arrastre operator through the Bureau
of Customs or the Customs Arrastre Service may not be
sued.  Neither may the Bureau of Customs nor the Customs Arrastre Service, for these are but parts of the
governmental machinery of the Republic performing a service incidental to a
prime go­vernmental function.  We also
had occasion to state there that the claim should have been filed before the
Auditor General in pursuance to the procedure established by Act 3083 as
amended by Commonwealth Act 327.  
Contrary to plaintiff-appellee’s stand, the
present money claim refers to a fixed
amount easily verifiable on the strength of papers and invoices within reach of
accounting officers and, thus, may be submitted to the Auditor General under
the aforesaid laws; the fact that the Government denies liability does not
render said Auditor General powerless to entertain a liquidated money claim (See
Resolution in L-26532, Insurance Co. of North America v. Republic, August 30,
1967).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby re­versed
and the complaint is dismissed,
without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.