12 - Delgado Brothers V Home Insurance - Visitacion

DELGADO BROTHERS, INC. V. HOME INSURANCE, INC., A.
A. Shipper and/or consignee filed its claim with petitioner for said loss
1 SCRA 854/ March 27, 1961/ Barrera, J./ ANCILLARY CONTRACTS B. Thereafter, respondent paid the amount to the shipper and\or
VISITACION, ERIKA consignee. The former was subrogated to the shipper's and/or
NATURE An appeal by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of consignee's rights and interests.
Appeals C. That notwithstanding respondent's claim against petitioner, the latter
PETITIONERS DELGADO BROTHERS, INC. failed and refused to pay the shipper and/or consignee
RESPONDENTS HOME INSURANCE, INC.,
Trial Court: DISMISSED the case and ABSOLVED petitioner from liability
SUMMARY. Victor Bijou & Co shipped at New York for Manila aboard the vessel Since no claim was filed within the 15-day period from the date of the arrival of
SS Leoville and consigned to Judy Philippines a shipment of 1 case of linen the goods before they could file a suit in the court of proper jurisdiction within 1
handkerchiefs and 2 cases cotton piece goods for which the New York agent of year from the date of said arrival at the Port of Manila, it is completely relieved
the vessel, Barber Steamship Lines, issued a Bill of Lading insured with Home and released of any and all liability for loss or damage under the law and in
Insurance. accordance with the pertinent provisions of the management Contract with the
Bureau of Customs, covering the operation of the Arrastre Service
The shipment was in good order however upon reaching the Port of Manila, the
linen handkerchiefs were in bad order, and with shortage to the prejudice, loss, CA: REVERSED because of lack of jurisdiction of CFI, it being a maritime
and damage of shipper and or consignee. Thus, Home Insurance filed against contract should be handled by the Municipal Court
the Delgado Brothers (contractor) for the said loss. Home Insurance paid the
amount and was subrogated to the shipper’s and/or consginee’s rights and ISSUES & RATIO.
interests. However, Delgado Brothers refused to pay. Petitioner claims that the WON the case has prescribed according to maritime law (arrastre being a
CA erred in not dismissing respondent's complaint on the specific ground that it maritime case)? NO
(Court of First Instance) had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action,
the same not being an admiralty case, and the amount sought to be recovered In case of controversy involving both maritime and nonmaritime subject matter,
falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila. where the principal matter involved belongs to the jurisdiction of a court of
common law or of equity, admiralty will not take cognizance of incidental
DOCTRINE. maritime matters connected therewith but will relegate the whole
In case of controversy involving both maritime and nonmaritime subject matter, controversy to the appropriate tribunal
where the principal matter involved belongs to the jurisdiction of a court of
common law or of equity, admiralty will not take cognizance of incidental Petitioner's functions as arrastre operator are
maritime matters connected therewith but will relegate the whole controversy to (1) to receive, handle, care for, and deliver all merchandise imported and
the appropriate tribunal exported, upon or passing over Government-owned wharves and piers in the
Port of Manila
FACTS. (2) as well as to record or check all merchandise which may be delivered to
1. February: Victor Bijou & Co. shipped at New York for Manila aboard the said port at shipside, and in general
vessel S.S. Leoville and consigned to the Judy Philippines, Inc. of (3) to furnish light and water services and other incidental services in order
Manila, a shipment of 1 case Linen Handkerchiefs and 2 cases cotton to undertake its arrastre service.
piece goods, for which, the New York agent of said vessel, the Barber
Steamship Lines, Inc., issued Bill of Lading No. 119 shipment as insured Note that there is nothing in those functions which relate to the trade and
with Home Insurance, Inc. by the shipper and/or consignee business of navigation nor to the use or operation of vessels
2. That said shipment as insured with herein respondent by the shipper
and/or consignee; that said vessel arrived at the Port of Manila on March Both as to the nature of the functions and the place of their performance (upon
30, 1955 and, thereafter, said shipment was unloaded complete and wharves and piers shipside), Brother's services are clearly not maritime but
in good order from said vessel by petitioner arrastre services.
3. March: Vessel arrived at the Port of Manila and delivered 1 case of
Linen Handkerchiefs in bad order, with a shortage of 503 yards of To give admiralty jurisdiction over a contract as maritime – such contract
Linen Print Handkerchiefs, to the prejudice, loss and damage of must relate to the (1) trade and business of the sea; (2) it must be essentially
shipper and or consignee in the sum of P1,287.20 so they filed a claim and fully maritime in its character; (3) it must provide for maritime services,
against Home Insurance Inc. maritime transactions, or maritime casualties.
4. Home Insurance Inc. filed against contractor Delgado Brothers Inc.
Delgado Brothers, Inc. has nothing to do with the loading or unloading of cargoes
to and from the ships. Its operation on and its responsibility for the merchandise
and goods begins from the time they are placed upon the wharves or piers or
delivered along sides of ships
Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction in cases where suit is brought
directly against the carrier or shipowner.
DECISION.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is hereby
reversed and set aside, and case dismissed, with costs against the respondent.
So ordered.
NOTES.
Issue: Multiplicity of Suits
Respondent cannot invoke the rule against multiplicity of suits, for the simple
reason that said rule has to be subservient to the superior requirement that the
court must have jurisdiction
ANCILLARY CONTRACTS
It must be noted that Art. 1732 makes no distinction between one whose principal
activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both and one who does such as a
sideline
An ancillary business is a sideline
CONSIGNEE
Person to whom the goods are to be delivered (May be the shipper himself as in
the case where the goods will be delivered to one of the branch offices or a third
person)

12 - Delgado Brothers V Home Insurance - Visitacion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 - Delgado Brothers V Home Insurance - Visitacion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 - Delgado Brothers V Home Insurance - Visitacion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DELGADO BROTHERS, INC. V. HOME INSURANCE, INC., A.

An ancillary business is a sideline

You might also like