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