Delgado Brothers, Inc. vs. Home Insurance Co.
 The shipment was unloaded by the petitioner in good order
1 scra 854 / March 27, 1961 /Barrera, J./ Distinction between
Common Carriers and Private Carriers
NATURE: appeal by certiorari to review
PETITIONERS: Delgado Brothers, Inc
RESPONDENTS Home Insurance Co.
SUMMARY. Victor Bijou & Co. shipped goods to manila which were
insured by respondent. The petitioner provides arrastre operating
services in the docks under a management contract with Bureau of
Customs. The goods were unloaded properly in the docks but upon
deliver the goods were in bad order and lacking. The shipper was
paid by the respondent as its insurer and subsequently filed a claim
against the petitioner. Petitioner is alleging that they are not liable
because they don’t fall under the maritime law and that they are
merely a depository or a warehouse. Trial Court dismissed the case.
CA reversed and said they are under maritime law. SC ruled that
they are not under maritime law and that their services are merely
incident to maritime activities but could not be considered as such.
DOCTRINE. Both as to the nature of the functions and the place of
their performance (upon wharves and piers shipside), an arrastre
operator's services are clearly not maritime. They are no different
from those of a depository or warehouseman Granting, arguendo,
that petitioner's arrastre service depends on, assists, or furthers
maritime transportation, it may be deemed merely incidental to its
aforementioned functions as arrastre operator and does not,
thereby, make petitioner's arrastre service maritimein character.
FACTS.
 On February 17, 1955, Victor Bijou & Co. shipped at New York
for Manila aboard S.S. Leoville a shipment of 1 case Linen
Handkerchiefs and 2 cases cotton piece goods. The Respondent
is the insurer of the said goods.
but upon delivery to the consignee the goods were found to be
in bad order ( 1 case of Handkerchiefs) and a shortage of 503
yards of Linen print Handkerchiefs.
 The shipper and consignee filed a claim for damages and loss
against the petitioner for P 1,436.86.
 Respondent paid the amount and subrogated the interests of
the shipper and consignee. Respondent then filed a claim
against the petitioner.
 The petioner as a special defense alleged that they are not
liable because the respondent failed to file a claim first to them
within 15 days upon the arrival of the goods before they are
allowed to file suit in any court. This is written in the
Management contract under the Bureau of Customs.
 Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court
denied.
 After trial, the trial court dismissed the case based on the
special defense invoked by the petitioner.
 Respondent appealed to the CA. CA reversed the trial court’s
decision and ordered the petitioners to pay the respondent.
 Petitioner’s appealed saying that CFI had no jurisdiction over
the case and should be dismissed because the case does not fall
under maritime law and therefore MTC has jurisdcition.
ISSUES & RATIO.
W/N the case falls under the admiralty case and under the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance- No.
Petitioner's functions under the Management contract
between the petitioner and the Bureau of Customs as arrastre
operator are (1) to receive, handle, care for, and deliver all
merchandise imported and exported, upon or passing over
Government-Tied 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 shipside, and in general, (3) to furnish Iight and water services
and other incidental services in order to undertake its arrastre
service.
Note that there Is nothing in those functions which relate to
the trade and business of navigation nor to the use or operation of
vessels. Both as to the nature of the functions and the place of their
performance (upon wharves and piers shipside), petitioner's services
are clearly not maritime. As we held in the Macondray case, they are
no different from those of a depositary or warehouseman.
Granting, arguendo, that petitioner's arrastre service depends
on, assists, or furthers maritime transportation, it may be deemed
merely incidental to its aforementioned functions as arrastre operator
and does not, thereby, make petitioner's arrastre service maritime in
character.

DECISION.
Petition granted. Case dismissed.