Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Customs Arrastre Service (CD)

    Uploaded by

    Kim Muzika Perez
    692 views1 page
    Mobil Philippines Exploration sued the Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs for failing to deliver one case from a shipment of four cases of drill parts. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the defendants were not suable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while the arrastre service function was proprietary, it was a necessary part of the Bureau of Customs' governmental functions, so sovereign immunity extended to both defendants. The state cannot be sued without its consent.

    Original Description:

    Consti 1 digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mobil Philippines Exploration sued the Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs for failing to deliver one case from a shipment of four cases of drill parts. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the defendants were not suable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while the arrastre service function was proprietary, it was a necessary part of the Bureau of Customs' governmental functions, so sovereign immunity extended to both defendants. The state cannot be sued without its consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    692 views1 page

    Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Customs Arrastre Service (CD)

    Uploaded by

    Kim Muzika Perez
    Mobil Philippines Exploration sued the Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs for failing to deliver one case from a shipment of four cases of drill parts. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the defendants were not suable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while the arrastre service function was proprietary, it was a necessary part of the Bureau of Customs' governmental functions, so sovereign immunity extended to both defendants. The state cannot be sued without its consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC.

    ,
    vs. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
    No. L- 23139 December 17, 1966

    FACTS : Sometime in November 1962, four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from
    abroad on S.S “Leoville”, consigned to the petitioner, Mobil Philippines Exploration
    Inc. Manila. April 10, 1963, in Port of Manila, the objects were shipped and was
    discharged to custody of the defendant, Custom’s Arrastre Service, the unit of the
    Bureau of Customs then handling Arrastre operations therein. The Customs
    Arrastre Service later delivered to the broker of the consignee three (3) cases only
    of the shipment.
    The Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissed the suit filed by the
    petitioner, sought to recover from the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of
    Customs the value of the undelivered cases in the amount of P18, 493.37, on the
    ground that the defendants are not suable.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs, possessing
    proprietary and governmental functions, respectively, are immuned from suit.

    HELD: The Supreme Court answered this querry AFFIRMATIVE. Deriving from the
    Constitutional guarantee that the State may not be sued without its consent.
    It is given that the Arrastre Service, which has non- governmental function, is
    undertaken as an incident to its government function, there is no waiver thereby
    of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity.

    Clearly, although said arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is a


    necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of
    Customs, so that engaging in the same does not necessarily render said Bureau
    liable from suit. For otherwise, it could not perform its governmental function
    without necessarily exposing itself to suit. Sovereign immunity, granted as to the
    end, should not be denied as to the necessary means to that end. Time and again,
    we have held the defendants absolved to the suit.

    “Unincorporated agencies will lie in suit, however, no suit without


    consent when the act was a necessary incident to its governmental
    function.”

    You might also like