UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIP­PINES, ET A.L., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Direct appeal from a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 62264, dismissing, upon motion,
appellant’s complaint against the Republic and the Bureau of Customs Arrastre Service, on the ground of non-suability of
defendants.

Subrogated to the rights of the consignee, Sillicons
Manufacturing Company, the appellant, Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd.,
brought action to re­cover P42,370.30, as the value of
135 coils of copper wire unloaded from the vessel “Eastern Star” on 27 September 1964 and allegedly lost
while in posses­sion of the Customs Arrastre Service
by negligence of the latter.  The
defendants pleaded (a) that the complaint: was based on a money claim against
the Republic, which is immune from suit without its consent, neither the Bureau
of Customs nor the Customs Arrastre Service being
juridical persons that can be parties to any suit, but mere dependencies of the
Republic; and (b) that, under section 902 of the “Tariff and Customs Code,
the “Government assumes no legal responsibility in respect to the
safekeeping of articles stored in any customs or bonded ware­house”.  The court below having upheld defendants’
motion to dismiss, plaintiff insurance company appealed to this Court.

The issue of the Republic’s non-suability for acts of the Customs
Arrastre personnel raised in the appeal,
is not new.  It was extensively
considered and discussed in Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., vs. Customs Arrastre Service, 17 December 1966, 18 S. C. R. A. 1121,
where the Republic’s immunity was upheld, and the doctrine has been uniformly
reiterated repeatedly since then.  The
cases are collated in the annotations at 18 S. C. R. A., pages 1127, et, seq.; 21 S. C. R. A. 428.  See also Caltex
(Phil.) Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, 26 December 1967, and numerous cases
therein cited.

The principles and rulings of the previous cases equally govern
the one at bar.  There is nothing here
that would justify a deviation from a doctrine so
uniformly and firmly established.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is
affirmed.  Costs
against appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.