GR 26533; (January, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26533 January 30, 1970
FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY and/or REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellant, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, insured a shipment destined for the port of Manila with General Electric Philippines, Inc. as consignee. Upon discharge, the shipment came under the custody of the Republic of the Philippines as arrastre operator. When delivered to the consignee, losses and damages amounting to P6,793.39 were discovered. After paying this amount to the consignee, the appellant, as subrogee, filed a complaint to hold both the United States Lines Company and the Republic of the Philippines liable for the losses. The Republic filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it on the ground of non-suability, invoking the doctrine of state immunity from suit. The lower court granted the motion and issued an order dated July 8, 1966, dismissing the complaint against the Republic for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff-appellant appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint against the Republic of the Philippines on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the State’s immunity from suit without its consent.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit unless the State consents is a settled and constant ruling, barring litigations of this character. The Court cited its precedent in Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service and numerous subsequent cases consistently upholding this principle. The Court acknowledged that the expanded role of government in business activities could cause inconvenience but emphasized that the policy of upholding state immunity is necessary to free the Republic from vexatious suits that would divert time and attention, thereby lessening governmental efficiency. The lower court’s action in dismissing the case was deemed correct and free from legal infirmity. The order of dismissal dated July 8, 1966, was affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.