EQUITABLE INSURANCE & CASUALTY CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. SMITH, BELL & CO., (PHILIPPINES) INC., IN ITS CAPACITY AS AGENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR KLAVENESS LINE, OWNER/…

Alternative suit.  The
pivotal averments of the complaint are these: 
A cargo of divers merchandise was imported by Manila Auto Supply Co.,
Inc., as consignee.  The carrier thereof,
s/s “Bonne­ville”, dropped anchor at the Port
of Manila on June 18, 1963. 
Plaintiff, subrogee of the consignee, seeks
recovery of the value of undelivered merchandise amounting to P23,420.84.  Unable to ascertain whether the cargo was
lost in the care and custody of the carrying vessel or the Bureau of Customs,
plaintiff now sues defendants in the alternative.^[1]

Defendant Bureau of Customs moved to dismiss.  Its ground: 
Non-suability.  The lower court’s
order of December 3, 1964
dismissed the case as against defendant Bureau of Customs.  Recon­sideration failed.  Plaintiff appealed.

By all means, the question thus raised is not untrodden
ground.  We have heretofore declared that
the Bureau of Customs cannot be a party defendant in a suit.  Because, it is neither a natural nor a
juridical person nor an entity authorized by law to be sued.  An arm of the Department of Finance, it has
no personality of its own, apart from the national government.  Arrastre service,
it is true, is a proprietary function. 
But just the same, it is a necessary incident to the primary
governmental job of assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported
articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines, and
penalties.  Thus, regardless of the
merits of plaintiff’s case, obvious reasons of public policy dictate that the
present action should not be allowed standing in court – it is a claim for
money against the State itself.  And the
State has not consented to the suit.

Statutory provisions waiving State immunity are construed in
strictissimi juris.  For, waiver of immunity is in derogation of
sovereignty.  And, this claim should have
been lodged with the Auditor General, upon the procedure delineated in
Commonwealth Act 327.

So it is that we
have ruled, upon situations parallel to the present, that action against the
Bureau of Customs must be dismissed. 
There is by now impressive unanimity of jurisprudence on this point.^[2]
No new argument has been advanced which would give cause or reason for us to
override our previous decisions.  We do
not now propose to depart from the ruling therein expressed.

For the reasons given, the order of December 3, 1964 dismissing this case as against
the Bureau of Customs, and the order of February
8, 1965 denying reconsideration thereof, are hereby affirmed.

Without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Civil Case 58595, Court of First Instance of Manila.

^[2]
Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre
Service, L-23139, December 17, 1966; North British & Mercantile Insurance
Co., Ltd. vs. Isthmian Lines, Inc., L-26237, July 10, 1967; Insurance
Company of North America vs. Republic, L-26532, July 10, 1967; Insurance
Company of North America vs. Republic, L-24520, July 11, 1967; Insurance
Company of North America vs. Republic, L-25662, July 21, 1967; Manila
Electric Company vs. Customs Arrastre Service,
L-25515, July 24, 1967; Shell Refining Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Manila Port
Service, L-24930, July 31, 1967; The American Insurance Company vs. Macondray & Co., Inc., L-24031, August 19, 1967.