8/17/2019 18.d American Insurance Co. v Republic

1/1

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-25478 October 23, 1967

AMERICAN INSRANCE COM!AN", Plaintiff-Appellant , vs. RE!BLIC O# $%E

!%ILI!!INES &'( BREA o) CS$OMS, defendants-appellees.

Quasha, Asperilla & Associates for plaintiff-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for defendants-appellees.

BENG*ON, +.!.,  J.

Sometime in May of 1963, the Bureau of Customs received from SS "urandot" a car!o

of cartons of oven heaters from #e$ %or&, consi!ned to San Mi!uel Corporation.

Su'se(uently, the Bureau of Customs failed to deliver 1 carton of ) pieces of oven

heaters $orth *69+.3+.

s insurers of the car!o, merican nsurance Co. paid the consi!nee *69+.3+.

n cto'er 6, 196, merican nsurance Co. filed a complaint for the recovery of 

*69+.3+ a!ainst the /epu'lic and the Bureau of Customs in the City of Manila. n

0e'ruary 1, 1962, ans$er $as filed, denyin! lia'ility and alle!in! immunity from suit.

n May )), 1962 the City Court ordered the defendants to pay ointly and severally to

the plaintiff *69+.++ $ith le!al interest from cto'er 6, 196 plus *1++ attorney4s fees.

5efendants appealed to the Court of 0irst nstance.

n cto'er ), 1962, the date set for pre-trial, only plaintiff4s counsel appeared. 7hen

the court as&ed from counsel of plaintiff the latter4s authority to compromise, the counselcould not present such authority. 7hereupon, the Court of 0irst nstance dismissed the

complaint for failure of plaintiff to appear.

*laintiff appealed to 8s, after denial of its motion for reconsideration, assailin! the order

of dismissal as erroneous.

Section 1 of /ule )+ of the ne$ /ules of Court re(uires that durin! the pre-trial, the

parties and their attorneys shall appear 'efore the court to consider, amon! other thin!s,

the possi'ility of an amica'le settlement. Section ) of the same rule provides that a

party $ho fails to appear may  'e non-suited or considered in default. t is clear that the

 ud!e has the discretion $hether or not to declare a party non-suited. o$ever, the point

is not for 8s no$ to resolve, it 'ein! rendered moot and academic in the li!ht of this

Court4s decision in Mobil Philippines Eploration, !nc. ". #ustoms Arrastre Ser"ice and 

$ureau of #ustoms, :-)3139, 5ecem'er 1, 1966 $here it $as held that the Bureau of 

Customs, as part of the !overnmental machinery, operates the arrastre service as an

incident of the prime !overnmental function of ta;ation and as such is immune from suit.

he same is true of the /epu'lic of the *hilippines in re!ard to said operation.

7