Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    National Airports Corp Vs Teodora

    Uploaded by

    Romielyn Macalinao
    This case involves a dispute over landing and parking fees paid by Philippine Airlines to the now-dissolved National Airports Corporation for use of Bacolod Airport No. 2. When sued by the owner of the land for the fees, Philippine Airlines filed a third-party complaint against National Airports Corporation. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, which replaced National Airports Corporation, argued it could not be sued as the corporation no longer existed and government agencies are generally not subject to suits. However, the court ruled that government entities can be sued if engaged in proprietary functions like operating airports. As the successor to National Airports Corporation, the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued in this case over the disputed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    National Airports Corp Vs Teodora

    Uploaded by

    Romielyn Macalinao
    57 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over landing and parking fees paid by Philippine Airlines to the now-dissolved National Airports Corporation for use of Bacolod Airport No. 2. When sued by the owner of the land for the fees, Philippine Airlines filed a third-party complaint against National Airports Corporation. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, which replaced National Airports Corporation, argued it could not be sued as the corporation no longer existed and government agencies are generally not subject to suits. However, the court ruled that government entities can be sued if engaged in proprietary functions like operating airports. As the successor to National Airports Corporation, the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued in this case over the disputed

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    National Airports Corp vs Teodora

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over landing and parking fees paid by Philippine Airlines to the now-dissolved National Airports Corporation for use of Bacolod Airport No. 2. When sued by the owner of the land for the fees, Philippine Airlines filed a third-party complaint against National Airports Corporation. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, which replaced National Airports Corporation, argued it could not be sued as the corporation no longer existed and government agencies are generally not subject to suits. However, the court ruled that government entities can be sued if engaged in proprietary functions like operating airports. As the successor to National Airports Corporation, the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued in this case over the disputed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    57 views3 pages

    National Airports Corp Vs Teodora

    Uploaded by

    Romielyn Macalinao
    This case involves a dispute over landing and parking fees paid by Philippine Airlines to the now-dissolved National Airports Corporation for use of Bacolod Airport No. 2. When sued by the owner of the land for the fees, Philippine Airlines filed a third-party complaint against National Airports Corporation. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, which replaced National Airports Corporation, argued it could not be sued as the corporation no longer existed and government agencies are generally not subject to suits. However, the court ruled that government entities can be sued if engaged in proprietary functions like operating airports. As the successor to National Airports Corporation, the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued in this case over the disputed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Macalinao, Romielyn P.

    Subject: Constitutional Law 1


    Topic: Non-Suability of the State
    Title: NATIONAL AIRPORTS CORP. Vs TEODORO
    Reference: 91 Phil. 203

    FACTS

    The National Airports Corporation was organized under Republic Act No. 224, which
    expressly made the provisions of the Corporation Law applicable to the said corporation.

    However, on November 10, 1950 the National Airports Corporation was abolished by
    Executive Order No. 365 and the Civil Aeronautics Administration was created for its
    replacement. But before the abolition, the Philippine Airlines, Inc. paid to the National Airports
    Corporation P65, 245 as fees for landing and parking on Bacolod Airport No. 2 for the period up
    to and including July 31, 1948.

    These fees are said to have been due and payable to the Capitol Subdivision, Inc. which
    owned the land used by the National Airports Corporation as airport. With this, the owner
    commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against the Philippine
    Airlines, Inc.

    In order to recover the amount paid for landing and parking fee, The Philippine Airlines,
    Inc. countered with a third-party complaint against the National Airports Corporation, which by
    that time had been dissolved, and served summons on the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

    The third party plaintiff alleged that it had paid to the National Airports Corporation the
    fees claimed by the Capitol Subdivision, Inc. "on the belief and assumption that the third party
    defendant was the lessee of the lands subject of the complaint and that the third party
    defendant and its predecessors in interest were the operators and maintainers of said Bacolod
    Airport No. 2.
    Consequently, after the Solicitor General answered the complaint of the third party, he
    filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the third-
    party complaint, because the National Airports Corporation "has lost its juridical personality,"
    and, because agency of the Republic of the Philippines, unincorporated and not possessing
    juridical personality under the law, is incapable of suing and being sued."

    ISSUES

    1. Whether or not government corporate agency may be sued?

    2. Whether or not the Civil Aeronautics Administration can be


    sued?

    RULINGS

    1. As a general rule, state cannot be sued without its consent and


    there can be no legal basis against the authority that formulate the law
    and which the law depends.

    However, the exemptions are the unincorporated type of


    government who are doing proprietary functions. Not all government
    entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune to suits.
    Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the objects for
    which the entity was organized. But contended that when a sovereign
    state enters into a contract with a private person, the state can be
    sued upon the theory that it has descended to the level of an
    individual from which it can be implied that it has given its consent to
    be sued under the contract. It has divested itself from its cape of
    immunity from suit.

    2. Among the general powers of the Civil Aeronautics


    Administration are, under section 3 of Executive Order No. 365, to
    execute contracts of any kind, to purchase property, and to grant
    concession rights, and under section 4, to charge landing fees,
    royalties on sales to aircraft of aviation gasoline, accessories and
    supplies, and rentals for. the use of any property under its
    management. These provisions confer upon 'the Civil Aeronautics
    Administration the power to sue and be sued, which is implied from
    the power to transact private business. And if it has the power to sue
    and be sued on its behalf, the Civil Aeronautics Administration with
    greater reason should have the power to prosecute and defend suits
    for and against the National Airports Corporation, having acquired all
    the properties, funds and chose in action and assumed all the liabilities
    of the latter.

    You might also like