Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    19 ICNA v. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Dexter Ledesma
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Bureau of Customs and the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued for alleged losses resulting from the arrastre (lighterage) service operated by the Bureau of Customs, as this is a necessary governmental function. 2) The plaintiff's claim for a fixed, liquidated amount that can be determined from shipping documents should have been filed with the Auditor General, not the court, according to Commonwealth Act No. 467. 3) Where the existence of a specific, fixed debt is the issue, the Auditor General has the power to act on the claim; but where the existence and amount of an unfixed debt is involved, the Auditor General

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    19 ICNA v. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Dexter Ledesma
    75 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Bureau of Customs and the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued for alleged losses resulting from the arrastre (lighterage) service operated by the Bureau of Customs, as this is a necessary governmental function. 2) The plaintiff's claim for a fixed, liquidated amount that can be determined from shipping documents should have been filed with the Auditor General, not the court, according to Commonwealth Act No. 467. 3) Where the existence of a specific, fixed debt is the issue, the Auditor General has the power to act on the claim; but where the existence and amount of an unfixed debt is involved, the Auditor General

    Original Description:

    nbj

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Bureau of Customs and the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued for alleged losses resulting from the arrastre (lighterage) service operated by the Bureau of Customs, as this is a necessary governmental function. 2) The plaintiff's claim for a fixed, liquidated amount that can be determined from shipping documents should have been filed with the Auditor General, not the court, according to Commonwealth Act No. 467. 3) Where the existence of a specific, fixed debt is the issue, the Auditor General has the power to act on the claim; but where the existence and amount of an unfixed debt is involved, the Auditor General

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    75 views1 page

    19 ICNA v. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Dexter Ledesma
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Bureau of Customs and the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued for alleged losses resulting from the arrastre (lighterage) service operated by the Bureau of Customs, as this is a necessary governmental function. 2) The plaintiff's claim for a fixed, liquidated amount that can be determined from shipping documents should have been filed with the Auditor General, not the court, according to Commonwealth Act No. 467. 3) Where the existence of a specific, fixed debt is the issue, the Auditor General has the power to act on the claim; but where the existence and amount of an unfixed debt is involved, the Auditor General

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

    G.R. No. L-27515 September 5, 1967


    19! INS"RANCE CO#PAN$ O% NORT& A#ERICA '. REP"(LIC
    %)*t+,
    Plaintiff Insurance Co. of North America filed, on October 14, 1965, in the Court of First Instance of anila, an action for the reco!er" of P#6,$#1.%$, the
    insured !alue of a shi&ment of ei'ht"(t)o *#+, cartons of 'oods, alle'edl" lost in the custod" of the carrier, defendant -nited .tates /ines, Co., or of the
    li'hter o&erator, defendant /u0on .te!edorin' Cor&oration, or of the arrastre o&erator, defendant 1ureau of Customs, an a'enc" of defendant 2e&ublic
    of the Phili&&ines. 3he 2e&ublic of the Phili&&ines and the 1ureau of Customs, on their &art, mo!ed to dismiss the com&laint, claimin' .tate immunit"
    from suit. 3hese defendants also filed an ans)er, raisin' the same &oint as a s&ecial defense. Plaintiff o&&osed the aforesaid motion to dismiss.
    4efendant -nited .tates /ines Co., filed an ans)er )ith a cross(claim a'ainst the 2e&ublic of the Phili&&ines and the 1ureau of Customs. .aid
    defendants filed ans)ers to the cross(claim. 4efendant /u0on .te!edorin' Cor&oration filed an ans)er and later an amended ans)er )ith a
    counterclaim. And &laintiff ans)ered the counterclaim.
    On 4ecember 1#, 1965, the court denied the 2e&ublic5s and 1ureau of Customs5 motion to dismiss. .ubse6uentl", ho)e!er, on Februar" 1, 1967, said
    court, ta8in' notice of Our decision in Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Bureau of Customs and Customs Arrastre Service , /(1%1%9, 4ecember 17,
    1966, dismissed the case )ith res&ect to the 2e&ublic of the Phili&&ines and the 1ureau of Customs. Plaintiff a&&ealed from the order of dismissal.
    I++-e.+ . &e/0,
    1. 9hether the 2e&ublic and the 1ureau of Customs ma" be sued: ;NO.
    +. 9hether the &etitioner should ha!e filed its claim thru the Auditor <eneral, it bein' for mone", under the &ro!isions of Common)ealth Act %+7. ;=>..
    R)t1o2)/e,
    1. 3he 1ureau of Customs, in o&eratin' the arrastre ser!ice itself, does so in the &erformance of a necessar" incident to the &rime 'o!ernmental
    function of ta?ation, and, as such, is not suable for alle'ed losses resultin' therefrom. A fortiori , neither is the 2e&ublic suable for said acti!it" of the
    1ureau of Customs.
    +. 3he &rinci&le reco'ni0ed in the Compaia eneral de !abacos case )as that a mone" claim for dama'es the amount of )hich cannot be readil"
    determined from !ouchers, re&orts or other means )ithin reach of accountin' officers, but calls for the a&&lication of @ud'ment and discretion u&on the
    measure of dama'es, is not )ithin the com&etence of the Auditor <eneral to decide. In the &resent case, the amount of the claim is alread" fi?ed and is
    readil" determinable from the bills of ladin' and other shi&&in' &a&ers. Accordin'l", such claim should be addressed to the Auditor <eneral.
    Neither did said case, Compaia eneral de !abacos , hold that )here the liabilit" of the <o!ernment is in issue, the claim cannot be filed )ith the
    Auditor <eneral. It is &recisel" for the Auditor <eneral to determine )hether the claim is tenable or not, and if not, to den" the same.
    3he real issue in said !abacalera case )as )hether the Auditor <eneral *then Insular Auditor, ma" offset a'ainst a s&ecific, li6uidated and undis&uted
    debt of the <o!ernment, an unli6uidated claim for dama'es in fa!or of the <o!ernment a'ainst the creditorA and the rulin' stated that he ma" not. .uch
    rulin' does not a&&l" to bar a case, li8e the &resent, )here no 6uestion of offset is in!ol!ed, but sim&l" that of allo)in' or disallo)in' a s&ecific and
    li6uidated claim a'ainst the <o!ernment. 2ather, it in effect sustains the &o)er of the Auditor <eneral to ta8e co'ni0ance of such a claim, for if the same
    be found in order and allo)able, the amount reco!erable is fi?ed and li6uidated, as determined or readil" determinable from &a&ers and in!oices
    a!ailable to him, instead of bein' sub@ect to his discretion, as )ould be the case in an unli6uidated claim for dama'es.
    .tated other)ise, )here the existence of a specific and fixed debt is the issue, the Auditor <eneral has &o)er to act on the claimA but )hen not onl"
    the existence but also the amount of an unfixed and undetermined debt is in!ol!ed, said official has no com&etence to consider such a claim. 3he
    &resent case is of the first 8ind, the assertion of the e?istence of a s&ecific and fi?ed indebtedness on the &art of the <o!ernment. It should therefore be
    lod'ed )ith the Auditor <eneral.
    i8hail <ome0 CoA, .ec. + ; Po)er to Act on .&ecific 4ebt Claim

    You might also like