8/10/2019 Mobil Phil Exploration v Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs

1/4

G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, 1966

MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORAION, IN!.,plaintiff-appellant,vs.!"SOMS ARRASRE SER#I!E $%& B"REA" o' !"SOMS,defendants-appellees.

Alejandro Basin, Jr. and Associates for plaintiff-appellant.Felipe T. Cuison for defendants-appellees.

BENG(ON, ).P., J.:

Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville" sometime in Novemberof 19!, consined to #obil $hilippines %&ploration, 'nc., #anila. (he shipment arrived at the $ort of#anila on )pril 1*, 19+, and was dischared to the custody of the ustoms )rrastre Service, theunit of the ureau of ustoms then handlin arrastre operations therein. (he ustoms )rrastreService later delivered to the broer of the consinee three cases only of the shipment.

/n )pril 0, 190 #obil $hilippines %&ploration, 'nc., filed suit in the ourt of First 'nstance of #anilaaainst the ustoms )rrastre Service and the ureau of ustoms to recover the value of theundelivered case in the amount of $1,09+.+2 plus other damaes.

/n )pril !*, 190 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the round that notbein persons under the law, defendants cannot be sued.

)fter plaintiff opposed the motion, the court, on )pril !3, 190, dismissed the complaint on theround that neither the ustoms )rrastre Service nor the ureau of ustoms is suable. $laintiffappealed to 4s from the order of dismissal.

5aised, therefore, in this appeal is the purely leal 6uestion of the defendants7 suability under the

facts stated.

)ppellant contends that not all overnment entities are immune from suit8 that defendant ureau ofustoms as operator of the arrastre service at the $ort of #anila, is discharin proprietary functionsand as such, can be sued by private individuals.

(he 5ules of ourt, in Section 1, 5ule +, provide

S%('/N 1. Who may be parties.:/nly natural or ;uridical persons or entities authori a natural person8 =!> a ;uridical person or =+> an

entity authori its function unit,the ustoms )rrastre Service, is a person. (hey are merely parts of the machinery of ?overnment.(he ureau of ustoms is a bureau under the @epartment of Finance =Sec. 1, 5evised

)dministrative ode>8 and as stated, the ustoms )rrastre Service is a unit of the ureau of ustom,set up under ustoms )dministrative /rder No. -! of November 9, 19! =)nne& ")" to #otion to@ismiss, pp. 1+-13, 5ecord an )ppeal>. 't follows that the defendants herein cannot he sued underthe first two abovementioned cateories of natural or ;uridical persons.

8/10/2019 Mobil Phil Exploration v Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs

2/4

Nonetheless it is ured that by authori is proprietary, not overnmental. (hus, insofar as arrastre operation isconcerned, appellant would put defendants under the third cateory of "entities authori

8/10/2019 Mobil Phil Exploration v Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs

3/4

supervision of the %&ecutive Secretary, /ffice of the $resident, and is "chared with thee&ecution of all printin and bindin, includin wor incidental to those processes, re6uiredby the National ?overnment and such other wor of the same character as said ureau may,by law or by order of the =Secretary of Finance> %&ecutive Secretary, be authori

8/10/2019 Mobil Phil Exploration v Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs

4/4

)mon the eneral powers of the ivil )eronautics )dministration are, under Section +, toe&ecute contracts of any ind, to purchase property, and to rant concessions rihts, andunder Section 0, to chare landin fees, royalties on sales to aircraft of aviation asoline,accessories and supplies, and rentals for the use of any property under its manaement.

(hese provisions confer upon the ivil )eronautics )dministration, in our opinion, the power

to sue and be sued. (he power to sue and be sued is implied from the power to transactprivate business. . . .

&&& &&& &&&

(he ivil )eronautics )dministration comes under the cateory of a private entity. )lthouhnot a body corporate it was created, lie the National )irports orporation, not to maintain anecessary function of overnment, but to run what is essentially a business, even if revenuesbe not its prime ob;ective but rather the promotion of travel and the convenience of thetravellin public. . . .

5eardless of the merits of the claim aainst it, the State, for obvious reasons of public policy,

cannot be sued without its consent. $laintiff should have filed its present claim to the ?eneral)uditin /ffice, it bein for money under the provisions of ommonwealth )ct +!2, which state theconditions under which money claims aainst the ?overnment may be filed.

't must be remembered that statutory provisions waivin State immunity from suit are strictlyconstrued and that waiver of immunity, bein in deroation of sovereinty, will not be lihtly inferred.=09 )m. Aur., States, (erritories and @ependencies, Sec. 9, p. +108 $etty vs. (ennessee-#issouriride om., +39 4.S. !23, + L. %d. *0, 29 S. t. 23>. From the provision authori