AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE V SPOUSES DAVID AND ELISEO
BERNAS]
RAMOS
FEBRUARY 23 2011 | BERSAMIN, J
FACTS
Sps DAVID and RAMOSs part of land (@ Baguio City, 985m 2) was being
used as part of the runway and running shoulder of LOAKAN AIRPORT
operated by AIR TRANSPORT OFFICE.
AUG 11 1995 RESPONDENTS agreed to convey portion by deed of
sale to ATO for P778,150 [ATO FAILED TO PAY]
AUG 29 1998 RESPONDENTS filed action for collection against ATO
and some of its officitals in RTC
o ATO: Proclamation No 1358 Pres. Marcos had reserved certain
parcels of land that included RESPONDENTS affected portion for
use of LOAKAN AIRPORT; RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain
action without States consent deed of sale entered into in the
performance of governmental function
o RTC: DENIED ATOs motion for preliminary hearing of the
affirmative defense; DENIED ATOs MR
CA: DISMISSED petition for certiorari
RTC [on merits]: ATO to pay RESPONDENTS P778,150 (value of land)
plus interest of 12% from AUG 11 1995 to date of full payment, P150,000
(moral damages), P150,000 (exemplary damages); P50,000 (attorneys
fees) P15,000 (10, more or less, court appearances of RESPONDENTs
counsel), costs
CA: DISMISSED appeal, RTC affirmed
ISSUE
WON ATO COULD BE SUED WITHOUT STATES CONSENT? YES
Immunity of the State from suit (Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity or Non-
suability of the State) SEC 3 ART XVI CONSTI The Sate may not be
sued without its consent.
BASIS: Political truism that the State, as a sovereign, could do no wrong.
KAWANANAKOA V POLYBLANK [HOLMES, J] A sovereign is exempt
from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on
the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
Practical considerations dictate the establishment of an immunity form
suit in favor of the State
OTHERWISE, The State is suable at the instance of every other
individual, government service may be severely obstructed and public
safety endangered because of the number of suits that the State has to
defend against
MOST ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION [accdg to FR.
JUSTIFICATION TO SUPPORT ADOPTION OF DOCTRINE IN PH
[A] continued adherence to the doctrine of nonsuability is not to be deplored
for as against the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss
of governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its
multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental principle were
abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted.
With the well-known propensity on the part of our people to go to court, at the
least provocation, the loss of time and energy required to defend against
law suits, in the absence of such a basic principle that constitutes such
an effective obstacle, could very well be imagined.
An unincorporated government agency WITHOUT any separate juridical
personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with
an inherent power of sovereignty.
PERFORMING GOVERNMENTAL PERFORMING PROPREITARY
FUNCTION FUNCTION
IMMUNE FROM SUIT NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT
Function was not in pursuit of a
Its function is governmental or incidental
necessary function of government but
to such function
was essentially business.
IN CASE AT BAR, ATO NOT PERFORMING A PUERLY GOVERNMENTAL
OR SOVEREIGN FUNCTION instead, was involved in management and
maintenance of LOAKAN AIRPORT (not the exclusive prerogative of the
State in its sovereign capacity)
HENCE, ATO had no claim to the States immunity from suit.
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity CANNOT be invoked to defeat a valid
claim for compensation arising from taking without just compensation
and without the proper expropriation proceedings [EMINENT DOMAIN]
DE LOS SANTOS V IAC Doctrine of sovereign immunity was not an
instrument for perpetrating any injustice on a citizen. In exercising the
right of eminent domain, the State exercised its jus imperii as
distinguished from its proprietary rights or just gestionis; yet even in that
area, where private property had been taken in expropriation without just
compensation being paid, the defense of immunity from suit could not be
set up by the State against an action for payment by the owners.
RA 9497 Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 ATO created by RA 776 was
abolished and all powers, duties and rights are transferred to the Authority
With the CAAP having legally succeeded the ATO pursuant to R.A. No.
9497, the obligations that the ATO had incurred by virtue of the deed of
sale with the Ramos spouses might now be enforced against the CAAP.
WHEREFORE, petition DENIED, CA decision AFFIRMED