Você está na página 1de 3

GAUDENCIO RAYO vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN G.R. No.

L-55273-83
December 19, 1981
FACTS: At the height of the infamous typhoon "Kading", the respondent opened simultaneously
all the three floodgates of the Angat Dam which resulted in a sudden, precipitate and simultaneous
opening of said floodgates several towns in Bulacan were inundated. The petitioners filed for
damages against the respondent corporation.

Petitioners opposed the prayer of the respondents forn dismissal of the case and contended that
the respondent corporation is merely performing a propriety functions and that under its own
organic act, it can sue and be sued in court.

ISSUE: W/N the power of the respondent to sue and be sued under its organic charter includes
the power to be sued for tort.

HELD: The government has organized a private corporation, put money in it and has allowed it to
sue and be sued in any court under its charter.

As a government owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct and
separate from that of the government. Moreover, the charter provision that it can sue and be sued
in any court.
MOBIL PHIL INC VS CUSTOM ARRASTRE SERVICE

Facts:

This case was filed by Mobil Phil Exploration Inc. against the Customs Arrastre Service and the
Bureau of Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case of rotary drill parts.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that not being persons under
the law, defendants cannot be sued. Appellant contends that not all government entities are
immune from suit; that defendant Bureau of Customs as operator of the arrastre service at the
Port of Manila, is discharging proprietary functions and as such, can be sued by private
individuals.

Issues:

Whether or not both Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs can invoke state
immunity.

ulings:

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Customs cannot be sued for recovery of
money and damages involving arrastre services, considering that said arrastre function may be
deemed proprietary, because it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental
function of the Bureau of Customs.

Civil Aeronautics Administration V. Court Of Appeals (1988)

FACTS:
December 13, 1968: Ernest E. Simke , Honorary Consul Geileral of Israel in the
Philippines, with several other persons went to the Manila International Airport to meet his
future son-in-law
In order to get a better view of the incoming passengers, he and his group proceeded to the
viewing deck or terrace of the airport.
While walking on the terrace filled with other people, he slipped over an elevation about 4
inches high at the far end of the terrace.
He fell on his back and broke his thigh bone.
December 14, 1968: he was operated for 3 hours
RTC: favored Simke
CA: affirmed
ISSUE: W/N Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) was negligent as the entity empowered "to
administer, operate, manage, control, maintain and develop the Manila International Airport
HELD: YES.
National Airports Corporation is dead and the Civil Aeronautics Administration is its heir or
legal representative, acting by the law of its creation upon its own rights and in its own
name. The better practice there should have been to make the Civil Aeronautics
Administration the third party defendant instead of the National Airports Corporation.

Você também pode gostar