Title
Asean Pacific Planners vs. City of Urdaneta
Case
G.R. No. 162525
Decision Date
Sep 23, 2008
Asean Pacific Planners et al. contested procedural rulings in a taxpayers’ suit involving alleged illegal contracts, improper representation, and party switching; SC upheld substantial compliance, rejected private counsel, and remanded for further proceedings.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 162525)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioners: Asean Pacific Planners (APP), APP Construction and Development Corporation (APPCDC), and Cesar Goco.
    • Respondents: City of Urdaneta, Ceferino J. Capalad, Waldo C. Del Castillo, Norberto M. Del Prado, Jesus A. Ordono, and Aquilino Maguisa.
  2. Background of the Case:

    • The case originated from a Complaint for Annulment of Contracts filed by Waldo C. Del Castillo, a taxpayer, against the City of Urdaneta, Ceferino J. Capalad (doing business as JJEFWA Builders), and petitioners APP and APPCDC.
    • Del Castillo alleged that then-Mayor Rodolfo E. Parayno entered into five contracts for the construction and management of a commercial center and hotel, funded by a P250 million loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB). He claimed that P95 million was paid for minimal work and that the contracts were void because the land involved was public property devoted to a public elementary school.
  3. Procedural History:

    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed Urdaneta City to withdraw its Answer and join as a plaintiff, admitting its complaint for consolidation with Del Castillo’s complaint.
    • The RTC also allowed Ceferino J. Capalad to switch from being a defendant to a complainant and expunged pleadings filed by his former counsel, Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun.
    • Petitioners APP and APPCDC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition due to procedural defects, including defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
  4. Key Allegations:

    • Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition on procedural grounds despite substantial compliance.
    • They also challenged the RTC’s rulings, including the allowance of taxpayers’ suits, the entry of a private law firm as counsel for Urdaneta City, and the switching of parties from defendants to complainants.

Issue:

  1. Procedural Issue:

    • Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari based on procedural technicalities despite petitioners’ subsequent compliance?
  2. Substantive Issues:

    • Did the RTC err in:
      a. Entertaining the taxpayers’ suits despite the alleged lack of legal standing?
      b. Allowing a private law firm to represent Urdaneta City?
      c. Permitting Urdaneta City and Ceferino J. Capalad to switch from being defendants to complainants?
      d. Allowing Capalad’s change of attorneys?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Disposition

The Supreme Court:

  1. Granted the petition and set aside the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions.
  2. Denied the entry of appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm and ordered the City Prosecutor to represent Urdaneta City.
  3. Affirmed the RTC’s rulings on the admission of Capalad’s complaint and the expunging of pleadings filed by Atty. Sahagun.
  4. Imposed fines on Attys. Sahagun and Escalante for offensive language.
  5. Remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.