Welcome, Xavier University - Temporary
Access to CD Asia Classic! Home Help
Separate
Decision Synopsis Syllabus Cited-In Cited References
Opinions
195 Phil 536-543
Laws
Republic
Decentralizati
Act No.
Act of 1967
5185
SECOND DIVISION
Republic
Local Autonom
Act No.
Act of 1959
[G.R. No. L-53766. October 30, 1981.] 2264
Revised
MARIA C. RAMOS, petitioner, vs. Act No.
Administrative
COURT OF APPEALS, Judge JESUS 2711
Code of 1917
R. DE VEGA of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, Malolos Branch
II and the MUNICIPALITY OF
HAGONOY, Bulacan, respondents. Jurisprudence
Jose de la Rama for petitioner.
Ciriaco O. Atienza for private respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner appeals from the Court of Appeals'
decision sustaining the trial court's judgment allowing
the municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan to use the
En
-
services of a private law firm in collaboration with the
provincial fiscal and municipal attorney in a suit for
-
recovery of its 74-hectare fishpond. cdasia
The Supreme Court, following the clear and
unmistakable provisions of Sec. 1683 of the Revised
Administrative Code, complemented by Sec. 3 of the
Local Autonomy Act, as well as settled jurisprudence
on the matter, held that the municipality may be
represented in its court cases only by a government
-
lawyer like the municipal attorney and the provincial
- -
fiscal so that it may not be burdened with the
-
expenses of hiring a private lawyer.
Judgment reversed and set aside.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; PUBLIC
CORPORATIONS; MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
MUST BE REPRESENTED IN SUITS BY THE
PROVINCIAL FISCAL OR MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY,
NOT BY A PRIVATE LAW FIRM; EXCEPTION. —
The ruling allowing a private law firm to act as
counsel for the municipality in collaboration with the
fiscal and the municipal attorney constitutes a grave
abuse of discretion because it is manifestly a
transgression of Sec. 1683 of the Revised
Administrative Code which provides that "the
provincial fiscal shall represent the province and any
municipality or municipal district thereof in any court,
except in cases whereof original jurisdiction is vested
in the Supreme Court or in cases where the
municipality or municipal district in question is a party
adverse to the provincial government or to some
other municipality or municipal district in the same
province. When the interest of a provincial
government and of any political division thereof are
opposed, the provincial fiscal shall act on behalf of
the province. When the provincial fiscal is
disqualified to serve any municipality or other political
subdivision of a province, a special attorney may be
employed by its council."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY
ACTS AS THE LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE
MUNICIPALITY. — The legislative intent to prohibit a
municipality from employing private counsel in its
lawsuits is further implemented by Section 3 of the
Local Autonomy Act, Republic Act No. 2264, which
provides that the municipal attorney, as the head of
the legal division or office of a municipality, "shall act
as legal counsel of the municipality and perform such
duties and exercise such powers as may be
assigned to him by the council." The municipal
attorney is paid out of municipal funds. He can
represent the municipality even without the fiscal's
collaboration. llcd
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. — The
lawmaker in requiring that the municipality should be
represented in its court cases by a government
lawyer like its municipal attorney and the provincial
fiscal intended that the municipality should not be
burdened with the expenses of hiring a private
lawyer. The lawmaker also assumed that the
interests of the municipality would be best protected
if a government lawyer handles its litigations. It is to
be expected that the municipal attorney and the
fiscal would be faithful and dedicated to the
municipality's interests and that, as civil service
employees, they could be held accountable for any
misconduct or dereliction of duty.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAW CLEAR AND
MANDATORY. — Section 1683 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as complemented by Section 3
of the Local Autonomy Law, is clear in providing that
only the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney
can represent a municipality in its lawsuits. That
provision is mandatory. The law being clear and
unmistakable, there is no room for interpretation or
for engrafting upon its exceptions or qualifications
not contemplated therein.
DECISION
AQUINO, J : p
This case is about the legality of a
municipality's hiring of private counsel to file a suit in
its behalf. The municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan,
through the law firm of Cruz Durian & Academia (now
Cruz Durian Agabin Atienza & Alday), sued in the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Marciano
Domingo, Leonila Guzman, Maria C. Ramos and
Consorcio Cruz for the recovery of its 74-hectare
-
fishpond (Civil Case No. 5095-M).
-
dctai
In paragraph 19 of the complaint it was
alleged that the municipality had obligated itself to
pay Cruz Durian & Academia as attorney's fees not
less than twenty percent of the amount to be
recovered by the plaintiff (p. 44, Rollo).
The provincial fiscal of Bulacan and the
municipal attorney of Hagonoy entered their
appearance as counsel for the municipality with the
-
manifestation that its private counsel would be under
-
the control and supervision of those officials.
- -
Notwithstanding that appearance, Domingo and
Maria C. Ramos (lessee and sublessee of the
fishpond) moved to disqualify the Cruz law firm from
serving as counsel of the municipality. LibLex
The trial court denied the motion. It found that
Angel Cruz, the head of the law firm, volunteered to
act as counsel for the municipality because he
desired to serve his native town.
Ramos and Domingo assailed that order by
means of certiorari in the Court of Appeals which in a
decision dated February 15, 1979 sustained the trial
court (Ramos vs. Judge Jesus R. de Vega, et al.,
CA-G.R. No. SP-7728-R). Ramos brought the case
to this Court.
We hold that the trial court and the Court of
Appeals erred in allowing the Cruz law firm to act as
counsel for the municipality in collaboration with the
fiscal and the municipal attorney.
That ruling constitutes a grave abuse of
discretion because it is manifestly a transgression of
Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code
which provides that "the provincial fiscal shall
represent the province and any municipality or
municipal district thereof in any court, -
except in
cases whereof original jurisdiction is vested in the
-
Supreme Court or in cases where the municipality or
municipal district in question is a party adverse to the
provincial government or to some other municipality
or municipal district in the same province. When the
interests of a provincial government and of any
political division thereof are opposed, the provincial
fiscal shall act on behalf of the province. When the
provincial fiscal is disqualified to serve any
municipality or other political subdivision of a
province, a special attorney may be employed by its
council."
The legislative intent to prohibit a municipality
from employing private counsel in its lawsuits is
further implemented by Section 3 of the Local
Autonomy Act, Republic Act No. 2264, which
provides that the municipal attorney, as the head of
the-legal division or office of-
a municipality, "shall act
as legal counsel of the municipality and perform such
duties and exercise such powers as may be
I
assigned to him by the council." The municipal
attorney is paid out of municipal funds (Sec. 4,
Republic Act No. 5185, Decentralization Act of 1967).
He can represent the municipality even without the
fiscal's collaboration (Calleja vs. Court of Appeals, L-
22501, July 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 895).
The questioned ruling of the two courts also
contravenes settled jurisprudence. Applying Section
1683, it was held that the municipality's authority to
employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only to
situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to
-
represent it (De Guia vs. Auditor General, L-29824,
-
March 29, 1972, 44 SCRA 169; See Reyes vs.
Cornista, 92 Phil. 838; Municipality of Bocaue vs.
Manotok, 93 Phil. 173; Enriquez vs. Gimenez, 107
Phil. 932).
Evidently, the lawmaker in requiring that the
municipality should be represented in its court cases
by a government lawyer like its municipal attorney
and the provincial fiscal intended that the
municipality should not be burdened with the
expenses of hiring a private lawyer. The lawmaker
also assumed that the interests of the municipality
would be best protected if a government lawyer
handles its litigations.
cdrep
It is to be expected that the municipal
attorney and the fiscal would be faithful and
dedicated to the municipality's interests and that, as
civil service employees, they could be held
accountable for any misconduct or dereliction of duty.
The Court of Appeals perceived nothing
illegal in allowing the Cruz Law Office to represent
the municipality of Hagonoy because lawyer Cruz
offered his legal services gratis. Petitioner Ramos in
her second motion for reconsideration called the
Court's attention to paragraph 19 of the complaint
wherein the Cruz law firm alleged that the
municipality had contracted to pay its lawyer a 20%
contingent fee.
The Court of Appeals in a resolution dated
December 6, 1979 said that there was no cogent
reason to reconsider its decision but at the same
time it gave the Cruz law firm fifteen days from notice
within which "to amend the answer" (should be
complaint) in the trial court by "deleting therefrom the
claim for attorney's fees" and to report such
amendment to the Court of Appeals; otherwise, it
would "motu proprio reconsider its decision."
Obviously, the Appellate Court wanted the
complaint to conform to its erroneous factual finding
that the Cruz law firm was serving as counsel without
compensation. It did not notice that its resolution was
ambivalent because while it denied the second
motion for reconsideration, in the same breath it
threatened to "reconsider its decision" if the
complaint was not amended.
Following that directive, the Cruz law firm filed
in the trial court an amended complaint dated
December 31, 1979 containing the allegation in
paragraph 19 thereof that the municipality was forced
to retain the Cruz law firm "as additional counsel
under the control and supervision of plaintiff's
principal attorneys and/or the Provincial Fiscal
without any obligation to pay attorney's fees." The
prayer for the payment of attorney's fees in the
original complaint was eliminated in the amended
complaint.
Ramos contended in the trial court and in the
Court of Appeals that the trial court could not admit
-
the amended complaint because it was immobilized
-
by the restraining order issued by the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals did not resolve that
contention.
On May 7, 1980, Ramos filed in this Court her
petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition
wherein she prayed that the Court of Appeals be
directed to resolve the issue raised in her second
motion for reconsideration and that the amended
complaint should not be taken into consideration
because it was improperly admitted by the trial court.
Although the Court of Appeals was furnished
on May 7, 1980 with a copy of that petition, it,
nevertheless, issued a resolution dated May 22,
1981 requiring the Cruz law firm to inform it of "the
further development on the matter" (p. 113, Rollo).
This Court treated Ramos' petition as an
appeal from the Appellate Court's decision. Ramos
was confused as to when she would appeal from that
decision because, as noted earlier, while the
Appellate Court denied her second motion for
reconsideration, the denial was not final since it was
accompanied by the warning that it would
"reconsider its decision" if the complaint was not
amended to eliminate the claim of the Cruz law firm
for attorney's fees. Hence, the alleged tardiness of
the petition was excusable. LLpr
The fact that the municipal attorney and the
fiscal are supposed to collaborate with a private law
firm does not legalize the latter's representation of
the municipality of Hagonoy in Civil Case No. 5095-
M. While a private prosecutor is allowed in criminal
cases, an analogous arrangement is not allowed in
civil cases wherein a municipality is the plaintiff.
Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative
Code, as complemented by Section 3 of the Local
Autonomy Law, is clear in providing that only the
provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can
represent a municipality in its lawsuits. That provision
is mandatory.
* The law being clear and unmistakable, there
is no room for interpretation or for engrafting upon it
exceptions or qualifications not contemplated therein.
As observed by Justice Moreland:
"Where language is plain,
subtle refinements which tinge words
so as to give them the color of a
particular judicial theory are not only
unnecessary but decidedly harmful.
That which has caused so much
confusion in the law, which has made
it so difficult for the public to
understand and know what the law is
with respect to a given matter, is in
considerable measure the
unwarranted interference by judicial
tribunals with the English language as
found in statutes and contracts, cutting
out words here and inserting them
there, making them fit personal ideas
of what the legislature ought to have
done or what parties should have
agreed upon, giving them meanings
which they do not ordinarily have,
cutting, trimming. fitting, changing and
coloring until lawyers themselves are
unable to advise their clients as to the
meaning of a given statute or contract
until it has been submitted to some
court for its 'interpretation and
construction'." (Yangco vs. Court of
First Instance of Manila, 29 Phil. 183,
188).
"Construction and
interpretation come only after it has
been demonstrated that application is
impossible or inadequate without
them. They are the very last functions
which a court should exercise. The
majority of the laws need no
interpretation or construction. They
require only application, and if there
were more application and less
construction, there would be more
stability in the law, and more people
would know what the law is."
(Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24
Phil. 504, 513). cda
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is reversed and set aside. We hereby
declare that the appearance in the aforementioned
case of Cruz Durian Agabin Atienza & Alday as
counsel for the municipality of Hagonoy is contrary to
law. The municipality should be represented by its
municipal attorney and by the provincial fiscal of
Bulacan. The restraining order is lifted. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion and De Castro, JJ ., concur.
Abad Santos, J ., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J ., concurring:
I concur on the strictly technical grounds
stated in the main opinion. I feel, however, that a
municipality or province should be able to seek the
help of competent counsel, if it feels its case is of
such importance that the services of the fiscal and
the municipal attorney would be inadequate and the
assistance of private counsel is offered gratis.
Anyway, the Cruz Law office can very well help the
government lawyers without having to make formal
any appearance. Withal, perhaps permission by the
Ministry of Justice may solve the situation of the
About Us Privacy & Cookie Contact Us Terms & Conditions © 2024 CD Technologies
municipality.
Policy Asia, Inc. All rights
reserved.
interpretation or construction. They
require only application, and if there
were more application and less
construction, there would be more
stability in the law, and more people
would know what the law is."
(Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24
Phil. 504, 513). cda
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is reversed and set aside. We hereby
declare that the appearance in the aforementioned
case of Cruz Durian Agabin Atienza & Alday as
counsel for the municipality of Hagonoy is contrary to
law. The municipality should be represented by its
municipal attorney and by the provincial fiscal of
Bulacan. The restraining order is lifted. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion and De Castro, JJ ., concur.
Abad Santos, J ., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J ., concurring:
I concur on the strictly technical grounds
stated in the main opinion. I feel, however, that a
municipality or province should be able to seek the
help of competent counsel, if it feels its case is of
such importance that the services of the fiscal and
the municipal attorney would be inadequate and the
assistance of private counsel is offered gratis.
Anyway, the Cruz Law office can very well help the
government lawyers without having to make formal
any appearance. Withal, perhaps permission by the
Ministry of Justice may solve the situation of the
About Us Privacy & Cookie Contact Us Terms & Conditions © 2024 CD Technologies
municipality.
Policy Asia, Inc. All rights
reserved.
interpretation or construction. They
require only application, and if there
were more application and less
construction, there would be more
stability in the law, and more people
would know what the law is."
(Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24
Phil. 504, 513). cda
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is reversed and set aside. We hereby
declare that the appearance in the aforementioned
case of Cruz Durian Agabin Atienza & Alday as
counsel for the municipality of Hagonoy is contrary to
law. The municipality should be represented by its
municipal attorney and by the provincial fiscal of
Bulacan. The restraining order is lifted. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion and De Castro, JJ ., concur.
Abad Santos, J ., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J ., concurring:
I concur on the strictly technical grounds
stated in the main opinion. I feel, however, that a
municipality or province should be able to seek the
help of competent counsel, if it feels its case is of
such importance that the services of the fiscal and
the municipal attorney would be inadequate and the
assistance of private counsel is offered gratis.
Anyway, the Cruz Law office can very well help the
government lawyers without having to make formal
any appearance. Withal, perhaps permission by the
Ministry of Justice may solve the situation of the
About Us Privacy & Cookie Contact Us Terms & Conditions © 2024 CD Technologies
municipality.
Policy Asia, Inc. All rights
reserved.
interpretation or construction. They
require only application, and if there
were more application and less
construction, there would be more
stability in the law, and more people
would know what the law is."
(Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24
Phil. 504, 513). cda
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is reversed and set aside. We hereby
declare that the appearance in the aforementioned
case of Cruz Durian Agabin Atienza & Alday as
counsel for the municipality of Hagonoy is contrary to
law. The municipality should be represented by its
municipal attorney and by the provincial fiscal of
Bulacan. The restraining order is lifted. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion and De Castro, JJ ., concur.
Abad Santos, J ., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J ., concurring:
I concur on the strictly technical grounds
stated in the main opinion. I feel, however, that a
municipality or province should be able to seek the
help of competent counsel, if it feels its case is of
such importance that the services of the fiscal and
the municipal attorney would be inadequate and the
assistance of private counsel is offered gratis.
Anyway, the Cruz Law office can very well help the
government lawyers without having to make formal
any appearance. Withal, perhaps permission by the
Ministry of Justice may solve the situation of the
About Us Privacy & Cookie Contact Us Terms & Conditions © 2024 CD Technologies
municipality.
Policy Asia, Inc. All rights
reserved.
