Facts:

The case involves Champion Auto Supply Company, Inc. (plaintiff-appellant) as the complainant against the Bureau of Customs (defendant-appellee), which operates the Customs Arrastre Service at the Port of Manila. The events leading to the case began on September 14, 1963, when the SS "Yakal," belonging to the Philippine Ace Line, loaded a shipment of eight bundles of cone and oil pump assembly in Yokohama, Japan. The vessel arrived at the Port of Manila on September 27, 1963, where it discharged the shipment into the custody of the Bureau of Customs. However, due to alleged negligence on the part of the Bureau, three packages were reported lost, and two bundles were short-delivered, resulting in damages amounting to P10,094.25 for the plaintiff. Despite repeated demands for compensation, the Bureau of Customs failed to pay the claimed amount. Consequently, Champion Auto Supply filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 60371) on Ma...

Facts:

1. Shipment Details:

   • On September 14, 1963, the SS "Yakal" of the Philippine Ace Line took on board at Yokohama, Japan, a shipment of eight (8) bundles of cone and oil pump assembly consigned to Champion Auto Supply Co., Inc. (plaintiff).
   • The vessel arrived at the Port of Manila on September 27, 1963, and discharged the shipment into the custody of the Bureau of Customs, acting as the operator of the Customs Arrastre Service.

2. Alleged Loss and Damage:

   • The plaintiff alleged that due to the negligence of the Customs Arrastre Service, three (3) packages were lost, and two (2) bundles were short-delivered, pilfered, or lost.
   • The plaintiff claimed damages amounting to P10,094.25.

3. Legal Action:

   • On March 25, 1965, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the Bureau of Customs, seeking payment for the lost and damaged goods, legal interest, and attorney's fees of P2,500.00.

4. Defendant's Defense:

   • The Bureau of Customs denied the allegations and raised special defenses, including governmental immunity from suit and lack of jurisdiction due to non-compliance with Act No. 3083, as amended.

5. Trial Court Decision:

   • The trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, as the plaintiff failed to prove that the shipment was delivered complete and in good order to the Customs Arrastre Service.

6. Appeal:

   • The plaintiff appealed the decision, but the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal based on the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Governmental Immunity from Suit:

   • The Bureau of Customs, acting as part of the national government in operating the arrastre service, is immune from suit unless there is an express statutory waiver of such immunity.
   • This principle was established in Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service (18 SCRA 1120) and has been reiterated in numerous cases.

2. Burden of Proof:

   • The plaintiff failed to discharge its burden of proving that the shipment was delivered complete and in good order to the Customs Arrastre Service. The absence of cargo or tally sheets as evidence was fatal to the plaintiff's claim.

3. Jurisdictional Requirement:

   • The plaintiff did not comply with the requirements under Act No. 3083, as amended, which governs money claims against the government. This further justified the dismissal of the case.