MARIANO E. GARCIA v. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ET AL.

16 SCRA 120 | January 31, 1966

Ponente: Regala, J.
FACTS:
The plaintiff filed with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan an action to collect a sum of money
against the above defendants. He suffered injuries while undergoing a 10-month military training at
Camp Floridablanca, Pampanga. He filed a claim under Commonwealth Act 400 and in April 1957 with
the Adjutant General’s Office which later disallow his claim for disability benefit. After further demands
of the plaintiff, the same Adjutant General’s Office denied the claim, alleging that the Commonwealth
Act 400 had already been repealed by RA 610 which took effect January 1, 1950. That by the reason of
the injuries suffered by plaintiff, he was deprived of his sight or vision rendering him permanently
disabled; and by the reason of unjustified refusal of defendants on the claim, plaintiff was deprived of
his disability pension from July 1948 totaling no less than Php 4,000 at the rate of P20 per month and
suffered moral damages and attorney’s fees the amount of Php 2,000. The Philippine Veterans
Administration and the Chief of Staff of AFP file separate motions to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; that the plaintiff
failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before coming to court; that the complaint states no cause
of action; and that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Acting on the said Motion,
the Court of First Instance, on March 2, 1962, rendered an order dismissing the complaint on the ground
that action has prescribed. Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been denied, the plaintiff
has interposed this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the lower court has jurisdiction on the said matter and dismissing the complaint on ground it
being the money claim against the government.

HELD:
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision on dismissing the complaint for the simple reason that the
Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, it being a money claim against the
government. If there is a money claim against the government should be filed with the Auditor General.
Plus, under the doctrine of state immunity, the state cannot be sued without its consent. Moreover, it is
in line with the principle that the State cannot be charged without its content as provided by the
Commonwealth Act 328 Sec. 1 that in all cases involving the settlement of accounts and claims other
than those of accountable officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within sixty days.
Also, if all administrative remedies have been made and if superior administrative officers could grant
relief, it is not necessary to entertain actions against the administrative officers as established by the
rule.
 Mobil Phil Inc vs Custom Arrastre Service
Immunity from Suit

MOBIL PHIL INC VS CUSTOM ARRASTRE SERVICE

G.R. No. L-23139 18 SCRA 1120 December 17, 1966
MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and BUREAU of CUSTOMS, defendants-appellees

FACTS:
This case was filed by Mobil Phil Exploration Inc. against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of
Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case of rotary drill parts.

Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad, consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration,
Inc. The shipment was discharged to the custody of the Customs 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 cases only of the shipment. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc filed suit
in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs
to recover the value of the undelivered case plus other damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that not being persons under the law,
defendants cannot be sued. Appellant contends that not all government entities are immune from suit;
that defendant Bureau of Customs as operator of the arrastre service at the Port of Manila, is
discharging proprietary functions and as such, can be sued by private individuals.

ISSUES:
Whether or not both Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs can invoke state immunity.

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Customs cannot be sued for recovery of money and
damages involving arrastre services, considering that said arrastre function may be deemed proprietary,
because it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of Customs.
The Court ruled that the fact that a non-corporate government entity performs a function proprietary in
nature does not necessarily result in its being suable. If said non-governmental function is undertaken as
an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit
extended to such government entity. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff should have filed its
present claim to the General Auditing Office, it being for money under the provisions of Commonwealth
Act 327, which state the conditions under which money claims against the Government may be filed.