DELGADO BROTHERS INC. v. HOME INSURANCE INC.
of Manila, subject always, however, to the terms, conditions,
FACTS:
 Respondent Home Insurance Company led with the Court of First
Instance of Manila a complaint against petitioner Delgado
Brothers, Inc. alleging that Victor Bijou & Co. of New York
shipped at New York for Manila aboard the vessel S.S. Leoville,
and consigned to the Judy Philippines, Inc. of Manila, a shipment
of 1 case Linen Handkerchief and 2 cases cotton piece goods.
 Said shipment was insured with herein respondent by the shipper
and/or consignee and arrived at the Port of Manila. thereafter, said
shipment was unloaded complete and in good order from said
vessel by petitioner, but the latter delivered the same to the
consignee with 1 case of Linen Handkerchief in bad order.
 The shipper and/or consignee led its claim with petitioner for said
loss in the sum of $713.08 (P1,436.86); and since respondent paid
the amount to the shipper and/or consignee, the former was
subrogated to the shipper's and/or consignee's rights and
interests. Petitioner refused to pay shipper/consignee.
 Petitioner alleged in its special answer that since no claim
whatsoever was led by respondent or the consignee, or their
representatives against petitioner within the 15-day period from
the date of the arrival of the goods before they could le a suit in
the court of proper jurisdiction within 1 year from the date of said
arrival at the Port of Manila
 RTC: Dismissed the case and absolving petitioner-defendant, but
on the merits of the special answer.
 CA reversed the former’s ruling.
ISSUE: WON Petitioner's arrastre service is maritime in nature and,
therefore, actions against petitioner arrastre operator properly come
under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila
HELD:
 During the period while this agreement remains in force and effect,
the CONTRACTOR (herein petitioner Delgado Brothers, Inc.)
shall be, and the sole manager of the Arrastre Service at the Port
restrictions, subjections, supervisions, and provisions in this
agreement contained, with the exclusive right or privilege of
receiving, handling, carrying for, and delivering all merchandise,
imported and exported, upon or passing over, the Philippines
Government-owned wharves an piers in the port of Manila; as
also, the recording or checking of all merchandise which may be
delivered to the port of Manila xxx
 Petitioner's functions as arrastre operator are (1) to receive,
handle, care for, and deliver all merchandise imported and
exported, upon or passing over Government-owned wharves and
piers in the Port of Manila, (2) as well as to record or check all
merchandise which may be delivered to said port at s hip sid e,
and in general (3) to furnish light, and water services and other
incidental services in order to undertake its arrastre service.
 Petitioner's services are clearly not maritime; they are no different
from those of a depositary or warehouseman.
 "To give admiralty jurisdiction over a contract as maritime, such
contract must relate to the trade and business of the sea; it must
be essentially and fully maritime in its character; it must provide
for maritime services, maritime transactions, or maritime
casualties."
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is
hereby reversed and set aside, and case dismissed, with costs against
the respondent.