AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, Petitioner, v.

SPOUSES
DAVID and ELISEA RAMOS, Respondents.

FACTS: Spouses David and Elisea Ramos (respondents) discovered

that a portion of their land registered under Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-58894 of the Baguio City land records with an area of 985
square meters, more or less, was being used as part of the runway and
running shoulder of the Loakan Airport being operated by petitioner
Air Transportation Office (ATO). Respondents agreed after
negotiations to convey the affected portion by deed of sale to the ATO
in consideration of the amount of P778,150.00. However, the ATO
failed to pay despite repeated verbal and written demands.

In their answer, the ATO and its co-defendants invoked as an

affirmative defense the issuance of Proclamation No. 1358, whereby
President Marcos had reserved certain parcels of land that included
the respondents’ affected portion for use of the Loakan Airport. They
asserted that the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the action
without the State’s consent considering that the deed of sale had been
entered into in the performance of governmental functions.
ISSUE: Could the ATO be sued without the State’s consent?
HELD: 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. Accordingly, a claim
for damages against the agency cannot prosper; otherwise, the
doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated. However, the need to
distinguish between an unincorporated government agency
performing governmental function and one performing proprietary
functions has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in favor of the
former because its function is governmental or incidental to such
function; it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function
was not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was
essentially a business.

The State’s immunity from suit does not extend to the petitioner
because it is an agency of the State engaged in an enterprise that is far
from being the State’s exclusive prerogative.
DENIED
Estrada vs. Escritor,
492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003

Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada
requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and
having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is
committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she
should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court
condones her act.
Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged
gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect
Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved
and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a
“Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows
members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter
into marital relations. The Declaration makes the union moral and binding within the
congregation throughout the world except in countries where divorce is allowed.

Issue: Is Escritor guilty of gross immorality for having an illicit relationship?

Does her religious belief justify such act?

Ruling:

Yes the act was grossly immoral. In a catena of cases, the Court has ruled that
government employees engaged in illicit relations are guilty of "disgraceful and immoral
conduct" for which he/she may be held administratively liable. In these cases, there was
not one dissent to the majority's ruling that their conduct was immoral. The respondents
themselves did not foist the defense that their conduct was not immoral, but instead
sought to prove that they did not commit the alleged act or have abated from committing
the act.
No, Escritor is not guilty of gross immorality and she cannot be penalized for her
freedom of religion justifies her conjugal arraignment. In interpreting the Free Exercise
Clause, the realm of belief poses no difficulty. The early case of Gerona v. Secretary of
Education is instructive on the matter.
The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one's imagination
and thought. So is the freedom of belief, including religious belief, limitless and without
bounds. One may believe in most anything, however strange, bizarre and unreasonable
the same may appear to others, even heretical when weighed in the scales of orthodoxy
or doctrinal standards. But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief,
there is quite a stretch of road to travel.

The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedom, including
religious freedom, may be enjoyed.