G.R. No. L-22625; April 27, 1967
FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, and/or MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On May 15, 1962, a shipment of fifteen cartons, valued at $1,722.19, was consigned from New York to Manila aboard the vessel “Susan Maersk”. The shipment was insured by the plaintiff, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company. Upon arrival in Manila on June 17, 1962, the cargo was unloaded and allegedly delivered to the arrastre operator, defendant Manila Port Service (a subsidiary of Manila Railroad Company). The arrastre operator delivered the goods to the consignee but one carton was missing (valued at $390.72) and another was short of contents (valued at $9.84). The consignee filed claims with the carrier’s agent (Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas), the arrastre operator, and the insurer. The carrier rejected the claim for the missing carton, asserting it was discharged complete from the vessel and advising the consignee to refer the claim to the arrastre operator and the insurer. The arrastre operator contended the missing carton was not landed. The insurer paid the consignee P1,898.66 and, as subrogee, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila on June 17, 1963, against the carrier and the arrastre operator as alternative defendants, due to uncertainty over which was liable for the loss. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, as the amount claimed (P1,898.66) was within the jurisdiction of an inferior court, but ordered Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas to pay P31.25. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action against the defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company, considering the amount demanded is only P1,898.66 and these defendants were joined as alternative defendants with a carrier of goods by sea.

RULING

Yes, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The Rules of Court permit a party to sue several defendants in the alternative when uncertain as to who is liable (Rule 3, Section 13) and to join causes of action in the alternative if they arise from the same transaction or relation between the parties (Rule 2, Section 5). The second paragraph of Rule 2, Section 5 provides that if any of the joined causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, the entire action shall be filed there. Here, the cause of action against the carrier involves a contract of carriage by sea, which is a maritime matter falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance regardless of the amount involved. Therefore, by alternatively joining the arrastre operator with the carrier, the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, including the claim against the arrastre operator. This ruling is supported by precedents such as Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Java Pacific and Hoegh Lines and the Manila Railroad Company. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings against Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company.