G.R. No. L-24930. July 31, 1967
THE SHELL REFINING COMPANY (PHILIPPINES) INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE, NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMPANY AND/OR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, THRU ITS CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVIC…
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
On November 19, 1963, the Shell Refining Company (Philippines)
Inc., filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the
Manila Port Service, the National Railways Company and/or the Bureau of Customs
through its Customs Arrastre Service, under thirteen
causes of action for the recovery of the sum of P16,210.11
representing value of certain merchandise allegedly lost or damaged in the
custody of the arrastre service, plus P5,000.00 as
attorney’s fees. The plaintiff did not
prosecute its claim under the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th causes of
action. With respect to the remaining
seven causes of action, the parties stipulated the following facts:
“1. That the plaintiff is a corporation organized
under the laws of the Philippines, with principal office at the Shell House,
1330 Roxas Boulevard, Manila; that the defendant
Manila Port Service is a subsidiary of defendant Manila Railroad Company Company, now National Railways Company, a corporation organized
under the laws of the Philippines; and that defendant Bureau of Customs is
joined in this action as operator of the arrastre service
in the Port of Manila.
“2. That prior to November 21, 1962, defendant
Manila Port Service, as a subsidiary of defendant Manila Railroad Company, now
National Railways Company, was the contractor and operator of the arrastre service of the Port of Manila and as such operator
said defendant was charged with the care and custody of all cargoes
discharged at the government piers in the Port of Manila, and was authorized
and required to deliver said cargoes to their respective owners or consignees
upon presentation by the latter of the corresponding release papers from the
carrying vessel and/or the owners or consignees.
“3. That defendant Bureau of Customs terminated
its management contract with defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad
Company, now National Railways Company, for the operation of the arrastre service in the Port of Manila on November 21, 1962
and said defendants, through its Customs Arrastre
Service, has assumed the operation, control, management and direction of the arrastre service in the Port of Manila.
“4. That from November 9, 1962 to October 23, 1963, the Associated Workers Union,
Associated Waterfront Supervisors Union, Arrastre
Security Association and the Philippine Transport & General Workers
Organization declared a strike against the defendants at the Port
of Manila.
“5. That plaintiff withdraws its claim under the
third, fifth, seventh, eight, ninth and tenth causes of action.
“FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
“6. That in or about October, 1962, the S.S. ‘Neder Wesser‘ took on board at
Amsterdam, Netherlands, six (6) packages of Steel Flanges and seventy-three
(73) packages of sundry tools, parts, valves and accessories, for which the
Nederland Line Royal Dutch Mail issued Bill of Lading Nos. 15 and 38,
respectively, in the name of PHS, Van Ommeren N.V.,
as shipper, and consigned to and with arrival notice to the plaintiff.
“7. That the S.S. ‘Neder
Wesser‘ arrived in Manila on or about December 4,
1962 and all the aforementioned cargoes were unloaded on the government piers
in the Port of Manila into the custody of defendant Bureau of Customs, thru
its Customs Arrastre Service in good order, the last
unloading being on December 6, 1962, while a provisional claim was filed with
the Office of the Collector of Customs, Manila on December 4, 1962, a copy of
which is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’ and made a part hereof.
“8. That plaintiff, as owner of the goods, had
presented the necessary shipping and release documents to secure delivery but
up to the present defendant Bureau of Customs, thru its Arrastre
Service, has failed and refused to deliver two (2) Rolls Forges Carbon Steel
Socket Weld Flanges, portion of six (6) packages covered by B.L. No. 15.
“SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
“9. That in or about October, 1962, the S.S.
‘Ajax’ took on board at Liverpool, Great Britain, thirteen (13) packages and/or
bundles of valves and conduits and other articles for which the Blue Funnel
Line issued Bill of Lading No. M-91 in the name of the Shell
International Petroleum Company, Ltd., as shipper, and consigned to and with
arrival notice to the plaintiff.
“10. That the
S.S. ‘Ajax’ arrived in Manila on or about December 7, 1962 and all the aformentioned cargoes were unloaded on the government piers
in the Port of Manila into the custody of defendant Bureau of Customs, thru its
Customs Arrastre Service, the last discharge being
on December 10, 1962 while a provisional claim was filed on December 7, 1962
with said defendant, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘B’ and made
a part hereof.
“11. That
plaintiff, as owner of the goods, had presented the necessary shipping and release
documents to secure delivery but up to the present defendant Bureau of Customs,
thru its Customs Arrastre Service, has failed and
refused to deliver one (1) bundle of conduit and four (4) loose 6″ 150#
gate valves.
“FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
“12. That in or
about November, 1962, the S.S. ‘Eumaeus‘ took on
board at Liverpool, Great Britain, thirteen (13) packages of valves and spare
parts for pumps for which The Blue Funnel issued Bill of Lading No. M-32 in the name of The Shell International Petroleum Company,
Ltd., as shipper, and consigned to and with arrival notice to the plaintiff.
“13. That the
S.S. ‘Eumaeus‘ arrived in Manila on or about December
22, 1962 and all the aforementioned cargoes were unloaded on the government
piers in the Port of Manila into the custody of defendant Bureau of Customs,
thru its Customs Arrastre Service, the last discharge
being on December 26, 1962 while a provisional claim was filed with said
defendant on December 27, 1962, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘C’
and made a part hereof.
“14. That
plaintiff, as owner of the goods, had presented the necessary shipping and release
documents to secure delivery but up to the present defendant Bureau of Customs,
thru its Customs Arrastre Service, has failed and
refused to deliver three (3) loose 3″ c/s gate valves.
“SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
“15. That in or
about February, 1963, the S.S. ‘Ferncliff‘ took on
board at New York, U.S.A. seven (7) packages of charts and machinery
accessories for which the Barber Line issued Bill of Lading No. 306 in the name
of Asiatic Petroleum Corporation, as shipper, and consigned to and with arrival
notice to the plaintiff.
“16. That the
S.S. ‘Ferncliff‘, arrived in Manila on or about March
10, 1963 and all the aforementioned cargoes were unloaded on the government
piers in the Port of Manila into the custody of defendant Bureau of Customs,
thru its Customs Arrastre Service, the last discharge
being on March 11, 1963, while a provisional claim was filed with said
defendant on March 11, 1963, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘D’
and made a part hereof.
“17. That
plaintiff, as owner of the goods, had presented the necessary shipping and release
documents to secure delivery, but up to the present defendant Bureau of
Customs, thru its Customs Arrastre Service, has
failed and refused to deliver one (1) box honeywell
charts.
“ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
“18.
That in or about March, 1963, the S.S. ‘Neder Rijn‘ took on board at Amsterdam, Netherlands, five (5) drums of Dichloroethane for
which the Nederland Line Royal Dutch Mail issued Bill of Lading No. 006 in the
name of PHS Van Cameron, as shipper, and consigned to and with arrival notice
to the plaintiff.
“19. That the
S.S. ‘Neder Rijn‘ arrived
in Manila on or about May 24, 1963 and all the aforementioned
cargoes were unloaded on the government piers in the Port
of Manila into the custody of
defendant Bureau of Customs, thru its Customs Arrastre
Service, in good order.
“20. That
plaintiff, as owner of the goods, had presented the necessary shipping and
release documents to secure delivery, but up to the present defendant has
delivered one (1) drum in bad order and leaking with loss of 103 kgs.; however, no provisional claim was filed with said
defendant.
“TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
“21. That in or
about October, 1962, the S.S. ‘Patroclus‘ took on
board at Liverpool, Great Britain, one (1) case of copper tubes and one (1)
loose steel tube for which the Blue Funnel Line issued Bill of Lading MO-53 in
the name of The Shell International Petroleum Company, Ltd., as shipper, and
consigned to and with arrival notice to the plaintiff.
“22. That the
S.S. ‘Patroclus‘ arrived in Manila on or about
November 11, 1962 and all the above-mentioned cargoes were unloaded on the
government piers in the Port of Manila into the custody of defendant Manila
Port Service in good order, the last discharge being on November 18, 1962,
while a provisional claim was filed with said defendant on November 12, 1962, a
copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘E’ and made a part hereof.
“23. That
plaintiff, as owner of the goods, had presented the necessary shipping and
release documents to secure delivery of the aforementioned cargoes which
plaintiff received from defendant Manila Port Service under Gate Pass No.
41220, dated December 5, 1962 and defendant Bureau of Customs, thru its Customs
Arrastre Service, under Gate Pass No. 79409 dated February
27, 1963, hereto attached as Annex 2-MPS and Annex 3-MPS, respectively, subject
to the exception taken by the plaintiff under Bad Order Report No. 3843,
hereto attached as Annex ‘F’ hereof, showing that one (1) loose furnace tube
was examined and found to be in bad order and beyond repair.
“THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
“24. That in or
about August, 1962, the S.S. ‘Steel Flyer’ took on board at New York, U.S.A.,
thirty-five (35) packages of pumps, tubes and other articles for which the
States Marine-Isthmian Agency, Inc. issued Bill of Lading No. 1-801 in the name
of the Asiatic Petroleum Corporation, as shipper, and consigned to and with
arrival notice to the plaintiff.
“25. That the
S.S. ‘Steel Flyer’ arrived in Manila on or about September 26, 1962 and all the
aforementioned cargoes were unloaded on the government piers in the Port of
Manila into the custody of defendant Manila Port Service in good order, the
last discharge being on September 28, 1962, while a provisional claim was filed
with said defendant on September 27, 1962.
“26. That
plaintiff, as owner of the goods, had presented the necessary shipping and
release documents but defendant Manila Port Service delivered in bad order and
beyond repair or use three (3) loose tubes with a value of P257.36.
“COMMON STIPULATIONS
“27. That
plaintiff admits the genuineness and due execution of the Manila Port Service’s
management contract with the Bureau of Customs, a copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex 1-MPS and made a part hereof.
“28. That on October 14, 1963, plaintiff wrote a
letter addressed to defendant Manila Port Service but was actually received by
the Customs Arrastre Service of defendant Bureau of
Customs demanding payment of the claims described in plaintiff’s several
causes of action. A copy of plaintiff’s
letter is hereto attached as Annex ‘G’ and made a part hereof.
“29. That on October 29, 1963, defendant Bureau
of Customs, through its Customs Arrastre Service,
answered the letter mentioned in the preceding paragraph hereof advising that
there were no formal claims filed with said office. A copy of said letter is hereto attached as
Annex ‘H’ and made a part hereof.
“30. That the parties reserve their right to submit a
supplemental stipulation on the value of the articles covered by this
agreement.”
x x x x
“1. That
the value of the two (2) rolls forged carbon steel socket weld flanges covered
by the first cause of action is U.S. $92.79.
“2. That the value of one (1) bundle of conduit
and of four (4) loose 6″ 150# gate valves covered by the second cause of
action is U.S. $91.87 and U.S. $654.34, respectively or a total of U.S.
$746.21.
“3. That
the value of the three (3) loose 3″ c/s gate valves covered by the fourth
cause of action is U.S. $171.21.
“4. That the value of one (1) box Honeywell Charts covered by
the sixth cause of action is U.S. $113.14.
“5. That
the value of the loss of 103 kgs. from
a drum of dichloroethane covered by the eleventh
cause of action is U.S. $15.46.
“6. That the value of one (1) loose furnace tube
covered by the twelfth cause of action is U.S. $387.72; however, plaintiff
admits that the arrastre charges on the shipment in
question were paid on the basis of weight or measurement, whichever was
greater, and not on the value thereof.”
On July 16, 1965
the trial court rendered judgment as follows:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered (a) dismissing the
first, second, fourth, sixth, seventh, eleventh and twelfth causes of action;
(b) on the thirteenth cause of action, ordering the defendant Manila Port
Service, as a subsidiary of defendant Manila Railroad Company (now National
Railways Company), to pay the plaintiff the sum of P257.36, with interest at
the legal rate from November 19, 1963 until full payment. There shall be no costs.”
Plaintiff appealed solely with respect to the portion of the
judgment dismissing the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th causes of action
against the Bureau of Customs and/or Customs Arrastre
Service. No appeal was taken herein by
the Manila Railroad Company and its liability is no longer involved in this
appeal. The only issue raised here is
whether or not the Bureau of Customs, in connection with its arrastre service, can be sued.
The issue is not new. In
Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre
Service and Bureau of Customs, L-23139, December 17, 1966, the facts of which are similar to the
instant case, We held that the Bureau of Customs,
being an agency of the government rendering governmental functions, is immune
from suit. In the instant case We find no special reason to depart from our aforesaid
ruling.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, dismissing the
complaint insofar as it referred to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th
causes of action against the Bureau of Customs, 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., on official leave.