Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Examples of instrumentalities of the national government are the Manila International Airport Authority,[246] the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority,[247] the Government Service Insurance System,[248] and the Philippine Reclamation Authority.[249] These entities are not integrated within the department framework but are nevertheless vested with special functions to carry out a declared policy of the national government.
	GR No. 178030 2010-12-15	PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS CARPIO, J.
This ruling was affirmed by the Court in a subsequent PFDA case involving the Navotas Fishing Port Complex, which is also managed and operated by the PFDA. In consonance with the previous ruling, the Court held in the subsequent PFDA case that the PFDA is a government instrumentality not subject to real property tax except those portions of the Navotas Fishing Port Complex that were leased to taxable or private persons and entities for their beneficial use.[8]
	GR No. 163072 2009-04-02	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CITY OF PASAY CARPIO, J.
Thus, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but a government instrumentality which is exempt from any kind of tax from the local governments. Indeed, the exercise of the taxing power of local government units is subject to the limitations enumerated in Section 133 of the Local Government Code.[10] Under Section 133(o)[11] of the Local Government Code, local government units have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like the MIAA. Hence, MIAA is not liable to pay real property tax for the NAIA Pasay properties.