Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26823)
Facts:
Malayan Insurance Company v. Smith, Bell & Co. (Phil.) Inc. and/or Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and/or Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-26823, November 17, 1980, Supreme Court Second Division, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Malayan Insurance Company, was the insurer and subrogee of the consignee of a cargo shipped aboard the SS Perseus from Liverpool to Manila. The complaint alleged that on or about December 17, 1964 the vessel discharged a shipment of 240 fibre casks of phosphate; the cargo was turned over ship‑side to lighter L‑282 of Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, which in turn delivered it to the Republic of the Philippines, acting as arrastre operator; the shipment was later warehoused by Luzon Brokerage Corporation, portions of which arrived in bad order and damaged. The cargo had been insured for P17,705; the plaintiff paid the consignee’s claim (P1,394.13) and was subrogated to the consignee’s right of recovery.
Because the appellant could not identify with certainty which of the alternative defendants had custody when the loss occurred, it sued the three defendants alternatively for recovery of money. The Republic, through the Solicitor General (then Antonio P. Barredo), moved to dismiss on the ground of governmental immunity from suit; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the suit as to the Republic. The other two defendants did not file appellees’ briefs below.
When the notice of appeal was filed (March 7, 1966), the Court had not yet definitively ruled on arrastre‑operator immunity; by the time appellant’s brief was filed (February 23, 1967), this Court had decided Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service (L‑23139, Dec. 17, 1966), holding that the Bureau of Customs acting as arrastre operator is immune from suit. The trial court’s dismissal of the action against the Republic was appea...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Republic of the Philippines, acting as an arrastre operator, is immune from suit such that the complaint against it must be dismissed.
- Whether the dismissal of the action against the private defendants—Smith, Bell & Co. (Phil.), Inc. and Luzon Stevedoring Corporation—for lack o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)