[G.R. No. L-16567. March 27, 1961.

]
DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., Petitioner, v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY and THE COURT
OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Facts:
Victor Bijou & Co. 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 Handkerchiefs and 2 cases cotton piece
goods, for which the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., issued Bill of Lading. Shipment as insured with
Home Insurance, Inc. by the shipper and/or consignee. Vessel arrived at the Port of Manila and delivered
1 case of Linen Handkerchiefs in bad order, with a shortage of 503 yards of Linen Print Handkerchiefs, to
the prejudice, loss and damage of shipper and or consignee in the sum of P1,287.20 so they filed a claim
against Home Insurance Inc. Home Insurance Inc.  filed against contractor Delgado Brothers Inc.

Trial Court, dismissed the case in favor of Home based on its special defenses invoked in its answer
since no claim was filed within the 15-day period from the date of the arrival of the goods before they
could file a suit in the court of proper jurisdiction within 1 year from the date of said arrival at the Port of
Manila, it is completely relieved and released of any and all liability for loss or damage under the law and
in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the management Contract with the Bureau of Customs,
covering the operation of the Arrastre Service for the Port of Manila; and that petitioner in no way acts as
an agent of the carrying vessel or of the importer or consignee. CA reversed because of lack of
jurisdiction it being a maritime contract should be handled by the Municipal Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court has a jurisdiction to decide over the case.

Ruling:
Yes, the trial court has a jurisdiction to decide over the case.

Under this provision, the 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 shipside, and (3) in general, to furnish light and water services and other
incidental services in order to undertake its arrastre service. There is nothing in those functions which
relate to the trade and business of navigation, nor to the use or operation of vessels.

In this case, 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 was held in
Macondray and Co., Inc. v. Delgado Brothers, Inc., they are no different from these of a depository or a
warehouseman. Granting arguendo, that petitioner’s arrastre service depends on, assists, or furthers
maritime transportation, it may be deemed merely incidental to its afore-mentioned functions as
arrastre operator and does not, thereby, make petitioner’s arrastre service maritime in character .
"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." Hence, the trial court has
jurisdiction over the case because clearly petitioner’s function is not maritime, but law in Warehouse
and Deposit (with 10 years prescriptive period).