7/26/2019 kriskldsd;sdsa

1/3

CASE STUDY IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

Air Transportation Ofce vs Ramos, GR No. !"#!", Fe$r%ar& '(, '), #** SCRA

(#, citin+ De os Santos vs Interme-iate Appeate Co%rt, s%pra.

G.R. No. "*)' / Fe$r%ar& '(, ')

AIR TRANS0ORTATION OFFICE,0etitioner, v. S0OUSES DA1ID2E3ISEA RAMOS,

Respon-ents.

4ERSAMIN, 5./

FACTS/

Respon-ent Spo%ses -iscovere- t6at a portion o7 t6eir re+istere- an- in 4a+%io Cit&

8as $ein+ %se- as part o7 t6e r%n8a& an- r%nnin+ s6o%-er o7 t6e 3oa9an Airport

$ein+ operate- $& petitioner Air Transportation Ofce :ATO;. T6e respon-ents

a+ree- a7ter ne+otiations to conve& t6e a

7/26/2019 kriskldsd;sdsa

2/3

ISSUE:

6et6er t6e ATO co%- $e s%e- 8it6o%t t6e States consent.

HELD:

T6e -ecision o7 t6e Co%rt o7 Appeas is s%staine-.

0O3ITICA3 3A state imm%nit&.

An %nincorporate- +overnment a+enc& 8it6o%t an& separate %ri-ica personait& o7

its o8n eno&s imm%nit& 7rom s%it $eca%se it is investe- 8it6 an in6erent po8er o7

soverei+nt&. Accor-in+&, a caim 7or -ama+es a+ainst t6e a+enc& cannot prosper

ot6er8ise, t6e -octrine o7 soverei+n imm%nit& is vioate-. >o8ever, t6e nee- to

-istin+%is6 $et8een an %nincorporate- +overnment a+enc& per7ormin+

+overnmenta 7%nction an- one per7ormin+ proprietar& 7%nctions 6as arisen. T6eimm%nit& 6as $een %p6e- in 7avor o7 t6e 7ormer $eca%se its 7%nction is

+overnmenta or inci-enta to s%c6 7%nction it 6as not $een %p6e- in 7avor o7 t6e

atter 86ose 7%nction 8as not in p%rs%it o7 a necessar& 7%nction o7 +overnment $%t

8as essentia& a $%siness. Nationa Airports Corporation v. Teo-oro, Sr. an- 06i.

Airines Inc., 06i. ')( :"';

Civi Aerona%tics A-ministration vs. Co%rt o7 Appeas :#= SCRA '! H!!;,t6e

S%preme Co%rt, reiteratin+ t6e prono%ncements ai- -o8n in Teo-oro, -ecare- t6at

t6e CAA :pre-ecessor o7 ATO; is an a+enc& not imm%ne 7rom s%it, it $ein+ en+a+e-

in 7%nctions pertainin+ to a private entit&.

T6e Civi Aerona%tics A-ministration comes %n-er t6e cate+or& o7 a private entit&.

At6o%+6 not a $o-& corporate it 8as create-, i9e t6e Nationa Airports Corporation,

not to maintain a necessar& 7%nction o7 +overnment, $%t to r%n 86at is essentia& a

$%siness, even i7 reven%es $e not its prime o$ective $%t rat6er t6e promotion o7

trave an- t6e convenience o7 t6e travein+ p%$ic. It is en+a+e- in an enterprise

86ic6, 7ar 7rom $ein+ t6e ec%sive prero+ative o7 state, ma&, more t6an t6e

constr%ction o7 p%$ic roa-s, $e %n-erta9en $& private concerns. Nationa Airports

Corp. v. Teo-oro, 06i. ')( :"';

T6e CA t6ere$& correct& appreciate- t6e %ri-ica c6aracter o7 t6e ATO as an

a+enc& o7 t6e Government not per7ormin+ a p%re& +overnmenta or soverei+n

7%nction, $%t 8as instea- invove- in t6e mana+ement an- maintenance o7 t6e

3oa9an Airport, an activit& t6at 8as not t6e ec%sive prero+ative o7 t6e State in its

soverei+n capacit&. >ence, t6e ATO 6a- no caim to t6e States imm%nit& 7rom s%it.

e %p6o- t6e CAs a7oreJ%ote- 6o-in+.

7/26/2019 kriskldsd;sdsa

3/3

T6e -octrine o7 soverei+n imm%nit& cannot $e s%ccess7%& invo9e- to -e7eat a vai-

caim 7or compensation arisin+ 7rom t6e ta9in+ 8it6o%t %st compensation an-

8it6o%t t6e proper epropriation procee-in+s $ein+ ?rst resorte- to o7 t6e painti