G.R. No. 96296 - Dizon vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Mariano Calleja is one of the nineteen civil service eligible employees of the Municipality of Iriga.
The employees were separated from service when their positions were abolished by the municipal council on the ground of lack of funds.
Believing the separation was without just cause, petitioner filed an action for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. 5077).
The petition sought both the reinstatement of the employees and the payment of their back salaries.

Respondents included the Municipality of Iriga, the Members of the Municipal Council, and the Municipal Treasurer.
During the trial, the respondent municipality and its officials were represented by:

The representation was based on the authority granted to the Municipal Attorney by a resolution of the Municipal Council under Republic Act 2264.

A decision was rendered ordering the reinstatement of the dismissed employees and the payment of their back salaries.
A copy of the decision was furnished to the Provincial Fiscal on March 8, 1963.
Although the Provincial Fiscal did not file a notice of appeal, on March 23, 1963, Municipal Attorney Atty. Felix filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond on behalf of the municipality and its officials.
The notice of appeal was signed solely by Atty. Felix, with the municipal officials endorsing with the statement “With our authority and consent.”

Petitioner objected on the ground that only the Provincial Fiscal had the legal capacity to represent the municipality in court, contending that the Municipal Attorney’s signature was insufficient for perfecting the appeal.
The trial court, on April 17, 1963, overruled petitioner’s objection, finding that the notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed within the reglementary period.
Petitioner then filed a motion on April 25, 1963, to set aside the trial court’s order; this motion was denied after an objection by Municipal Attorney Felix was approved by the Provincial Fiscal.
The matter was later forwarded to the Court of Appeals, where on January 29, 1964, the motion to dismiss the notice of appeal was denied.

The main issue is whether Atty. Silvestre Felix, in his capacity as Municipal Attorney, had the authority under law to sign the notice of appeal without the accompanying signature or conformity of the Provincial Fiscal.
Petitioner argued that the exclusive representation of the municipality in such cases is vested solely in the Provincial Fiscal pursuant to Sections 1681 and 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code.
Petitioner further contended that the Municipal Council’s resolution creating the office of Municipal Attorney was ultra vires and should not permit Atty. Felix to represent the municipality independently.

Whether the Municipal Attorney, Atty. Silvestre Felix, had legal authority to sign the notice of appeal on behalf of the Municipality of Iriga and its officials without the signature or direct participation of the Provincial Fiscal.
Whether the filing of the notice of appeal solely by the Municipal Attorney invalidated the appeal, thereby warranting its dismissal under Section 1, paragraph (b) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
How to harmonize the provisions of Sections 1681 and 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code with Section 3, paragraph 3(a) of Republic Act 2264 concerning the representation in court.