Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. SPS. DAVID

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 167290 2014-11-26	HERMANO OIL MANUFACTURING v. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD BERSAMIN, J.
In Air Transportation Office v. Ramos,[16] we expounded on the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the following manner: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.
	GR No. 190120 2014-11-11	CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is worth mentioning that this is not the first time for this Court to rule regarding the abolition of the ATO and the emergence of the CAAP by virtue of R.A. No. 9497. Holding that the CAAP, as the legal successor of the ATO, is liable to respondents therein for obligations incurred by ATO, this Court in Air Transportation Office v. Ramos,[76] in no uncertain terms, held that the ATO was abolished by virtue of Sections 4 and 85 of R.A. No. 9497.
	GR No. 206510 2014-09-16	MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State,[17] is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states: Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,[18]we discussed the principle of state immunity from suit, as follows:
	GR No. 206510 2014-09-16	MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Air Transportation Office v. Spouses Ramos,[88] this court underscored the practical considerations underlying the doctrine: Practical considerations dictate the establishment of an immunity from suit in favor of the State. Otherwise, and 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 . . . .[89] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
	GR No. 203834 2014-07-09	HEIRS OF DIOSDADO M. MENDOZA v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CARPIO, J.
In Air Transportation Office v. Ramos,[36] the Court expounded: An unincorporated agency without any separate juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty. x x x. 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.[37]
	GR No. 182358 2013-02-20	SECRETARY OF HEALTH v. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH DEL CASTILLO, J.
The ruling in Air Transportation Office v. Ramos[40] is relevant, viz: 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.[41]