GR L 24031; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24031, August 19, 1967.
THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MACONDRAY and CO., INC., REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, defendants. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The American Insurance Company filed a complaint against Macondray & Co., Inc. and the Bureau of Customs as alternative defendants for the recovery of a sum of money representing an unsatisfied claim for loss and non-delivery of imported goods. The plaintiff, as insurer, was subrogated to the rights of the consignee after paying the loss. The goods were shipped from New York, with Macondray & Co., Inc. as the vessel’s agent in the Philippines. The complaint alleged that upon arrival in Manila, the defendants either failed to completely discharge the cargo or, having discharged it, failed to take transshipment, resulting in loss. The Bureau of Customs was implicated as the operator of the arrastre service at the Port of Manila through its Customs Arrastre Service division. The Republic of the Philippines was later included as a party defendant in an amended complaint. The defendants Republic and Bureau of Customs moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the money claim (less than P10,000) fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court. The lower court dismissed the case against the Government and the Bureau of Customs on this jurisdictional ground.
ISSUE
Whether a money claim of less than P10,000, allegedly arising from the failure of the Bureau of Customs in its arrastre service, may be joined with a subject matter involving admiralty in one suit filed in the Court of First Instance against alternative defendants.
RULING
Yes, the joinder is permissible under the Rules of Court. The causes of action against the alternative defendants arose from the same transaction, and the admiralty aspect against the shipping agent falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Therefore, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try the entire case. However, the complaint against the Republic of the Philippines and the Bureau of Customs was ultimately dismissed on a separate, fundamental ground. The complaint failed to allege that the Republic of the Philippines had given its consent to be sued. The non-suability of the state without its consent is a basic principle, and the absence of such an allegation is a fatal defect that vitiates the complaint against the government. Since the Bureau of Customs has no separate juridical personality from the national government, the dismissal applies to it as well. The order of dismissal was affirmed, but on the ground of non-suability of the state, not lack of jurisdiction.