Wise & Company v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Five hundred packages of 6-ply paper bags salt P.D.V. were shipped from England, consigned to Wise and Company, Inc. The carrier discharged the shipment into the custody of the Customs Arrastre Service. Of the shipment, only 438 bags were delivered, with 31 of those bags being torn and slack. Wise and Company, Inc. claimed P549.30, representing the value of the 62 undelivered bags and the damage to the 31 bags. Procedural History: The consignee filed an action before the City Court of Manila to recover the claimed amount plus attorney's fees from the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs, and the Customs Arrastre Service. The City Court and, on appeal, the Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff, despite their refusal to admit liability and their defenses of non-suability and non-compliance with the requisites for money claims against the government under Act No. 3083 as amended by C.A. 327. The Petition: The defendants appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs, and the Customs Arrastre Service can be sued without their consent for claims arising from the operation of the arrastre service. Whether the plaintiff complied with the requisites for filing money claims against the government under Act No. 3083 as amended by C.A. 327.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed. Suit dismissed, without costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of suability of government agencies operating the arrastre service: The Supreme Court held that the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs, and the Customs Arrastre Service, as agencies of the former, operated the arrastre service as a mere incident of a proper governmental function, specifically the assessment and collection of lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines, and penalties. For the performance of such an incidental function, none of these defendants may be sued without its consent. This ruling aligns with previous decisions of the Court on the matter. On the issue of compliance with requisites for money claims against the government: The Court reiterated that aside from having to present money claims of this nature according to the procedure set in Act 3083 as amended by C.A. 327, the government agencies involved in operating the arrastre service cannot be sued without its consent. The plaintiff's failure to comply with these procedural requirements, coupled with the nature of the arrastre service as an incidental governmental function, led to the dismissal of the suit. The Court emphasized that the arrastre service is not a proprietary function that would imply consent to be sued, but rather an adjunct to the primary governmental duty of collecting customs duties and taxes.
Main Doctrine
Government agencies operating the arrastre service as a mere incident of a proper governmental function, such as assessing and collecting lawful revenues, cannot be sued without its consent, and claims must follow the procedure set in Act 3083 as amended by C.A. 327.