BULATAO, NLJR ,

Topic: Admiralty and Maritime Commerce; Concept of Admiralty;

Jurisdiction over admiralty Cases
FLOW OF THE CASE:
International Harvester Company of the Philippines (petitioner and appealed)
VENUE ACTION DECISION
Vs Judge Crisanto Aragon and YARAS & COMPANY, FAR EAST
(respondents and appellants) 1. Municipal Court of YARAS & Co filed an 1. before the trial
GR No L-2372 August 26, 1949 (Division not indicated) Manila action to recover the International Harvester
PARAS, J.: value of the lost cargo filed a motion to dismiss
amounting to P200 with
Hinimay-himay na FACTS: legal interest from the
1. On September 27, 1946, the S/S BELLE OF THE SEA (Ito any barko) took date of filing of the
on board at Los Angeles, California, U. S. A., goods (Ito yung goods ng complaint
YARAS & COMPANY) for shipment to Manila, Philippines. These were 2. Municipal Court of International Harvester 1. Judge Crisanto
covered by Bill of Lading No. 105; Manila Co filed a MOTION TO Aragon overruled the
1. On December 23, 1946 the S/S Belle of the Sea arrived in Manila. It DISMISS (see table of Motion to Dismiss (Ibig
discharged her cargo at the Government piers under the supervision and arguments) sabihin parang hindi
custody of the defendant MANILA TERMINAL CO., INC.; pinakinggan)
2. That out of the goods covered by Bill of Lading No. 105, ONE (1) carton of 3. Court of First Instance International Harvester 1. Ruled in favor of
assorted samples with a stipulated value of P200 was NOT delivered to of Manila (now RTC) filed a PETITION FOR International
Yaras and Company; PROHIBITION. Harvester Co.
3. Said merchandise was lost through the negligence either of the Manila The purpose is to 2. Ordered Judge
Terminal Co., Inc., OR of the International Harvester Company of the restrain Judge Crisanto Aragon TO DESIST
Aragon from proceeding from taking
Philippines. with the said case. cognizance of CIVIL
4. As a result, on July 09, 1947 YARAS & COMPANY, filed a complaint in the CASE NO IV-262
Municipal Court of Manila (civil case No. IV-262) against the Manila against International
Terminal Co., Inc., and International Harvester Company of the Harvester Co.
Philippines and seeks to recover the value of the lost cargo. The
4. Supreme Court Respondents 1. Ruled in favor of
complaint prayed for judgment either against the defendant Manila APPEALED International
Terminal Co., Inc., or the International Harvester Company of the Harvester.
Philippines for the amount of P200, with legal interest from the date of 2. Judgment of CFI (now
the filing of the complaint. RTC) was affirmed.
5. Explanations: YARAS impleaded INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY
since it is the agent in the Philippines of the vessel Belle of the Sea. YARAS .
impleaded MANILA TERMINAL CO since it is in charge of the custody and
delivery to the respective owners of cargoes discharged at the Argument of International Argument of YARAS & Company
Government piers in the City of Manila Harvester Company (as to the
6. However before the trial, International Harvester Company FILED A Motion to Dismiss)
MOTION TO DISMISS (look at the table) 1. Municipal Court of Manila had NO 1. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION is
 JURISDICTION to try the case. not involved A: Yes, in this case since cases of admiralty fall within the original
2. The reason is that the action 2. The reason is that the contract in jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance hence the jurisdiction of the
involves ADMIRALTY or question was made upon land justice of the Peace Courts has no jurisdiction. Since the Municipal Court of
MARITIME JURISDICTION. and to be terminated upon land. Manial has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, it may be
restrained by THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION.
Q: What is the jurisdiction of admiralty?
Main ISSUE: Whether or not the Municipal Court of Manila has jurisdiction A: It has jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, in whatever form, wherever
over the case (however, in order to answer this, we must first look at sub- they were executed or are to be performed. However, it has no jurisdiction
issues)
over non-maritime contracts.
ISSUE#1: WON it involves admiralty
HELD and RATIO: Q; What is the criterion in determining a maritime contract?
A; The subject matter of the contract (test)
The Court Said that ADMIRALTY has jurisdiction over all maritime
contracts, in whatever form, wherever they are executed or are to be
performed, but not on non-maritime contracts.
The Court said that the TRUE CRITERION In determining WON a
contract is maritime is the SUBJECT-MATTER of the contract . It DOES NOT
DEPEND ON THE PLACE (test of locality, I prefer to call it this way) where
the contract IS MADE OR EXECUTED.
It further said that the contention of YARAS & Co (see table of
argument) reflects that of the English Rule which has long been rejected in
the United States. It choose to adopt the sound American rule.
Moreover, the Court said that ADMIRALTY has jurisdiction of a
proceeding in rem or in personam for the breach of a contract of afar
eighteens, whether evidenced by a bill of lading or a charter party.
Now, since the case of YARAS & CO seeks to recover from
tINTERNATIONA HARVESTERS COMPANY the value of a certain lost
cargo hence it is under admiralty.

ANSWER TO THE MAIN ISSUE: Hence, since the cause of action of

YARAS & CO against INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO involves
admiralty then the Court of First Instance has ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(remember the jurisdiction concept in CivPro). it is admiralty then it Whether
or not PAL is exempt from liability since the non-fulfillment of the contract is
due to fortuitous event.

QUESTION and ANSWER:

Q: Is the Writ of Prohibition a proper remedy in this case?