Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23139)
Facts:
Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. L-23139. December 17, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J.P., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellant, Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., imported four cases of rotary drill parts shipped in November 1962 and consigned to Manila. The shipment arrived at the Port of Manila on April 10, 1963, and was discharged to the custody of the Customs Arrastre Service, the unit of the Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre operations; only three of the four cases were later delivered to the consignee’s broker, one case remaining undelivered.
On April 4, 1964, Mobil filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs to recover P18,493.37 (value of the missing case) plus other damages. The defendants moved to dismiss on April 20, 1964, arguing they were not persons capable of being sued. The trial court, after plaintiff’s opposition, dismissed the complaint on April 25, 1964 on the ground that neither defendant was suable.
Mobil appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court, raising the purely legal question whether the Bureau of Customs and its Arrastre Service could be sued in a civil action. The parties’ dispute turned on whether the arrastre operations performed by the Bureau were proprietary (making it suable) or governmental/incidental (preserving sovereign immunity). The record included the stat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of First Instance correct to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs are not suable persons under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court?
- Does the Bureau’s performance of arrastre services — which may be proprietary in character — render it suable because such activity implies...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)