Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22501)
Facts:
The case involves Mariano Calleja as the petitioner against the Court of Appeals, the Municipality of Iriga, Jose Villanueva, and Marciano Tino as respondents. The events leading to this case began when Calleja, along with eighteen other civil service eligible employees of the Municipality of Iriga, were dismissed from their positions due to the abolition of their roles by the municipal council, citing a lack of funds. Believing their termination was unjust, Calleja filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. 5077) seeking reinstatement and back salaries. During the trial, the Municipality of Iriga and its officials were represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur, assisted by Municipal Attorney Atty. Silvestre Felix. The lower court ruled in favor of Calleja, ordering the reinstatement of the employees and the payment of their back salaries. A copy of this decision was received by the Provincial Fiscal on March 8, 1963, b...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22501)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Petitioner Mariano Calleja and 18 other civil service eligible employees of the Municipality of Iriga were dismissed when their positions were abolished by the municipal council due to lack of funds.
- Believing their removal was without just cause, Calleja filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. 5077) seeking reinstatement and back salaries.
Representation in the Lower Court:
- The Municipality of Iriga and its officials were represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur, assisted by Atty. Silvestre Felix, the Municipal Attorney of Iriga.
- The lower court ruled in favor of the dismissed employees, ordering their reinstatement and payment of back salaries.
Appeal Process:
- The Provincial Fiscal received the decision on March 8, 1963, but did not file a notice of appeal.
- On March 23, 1963 (the last day for appeal), Atty. Silvestre Felix, acting as Municipal Attorney, filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond on behalf of the municipality and its officials.
- The municipal officials signed the notice of appeal, stating, "With our authority and consent."
Objection to the Appeal:
- Calleja objected to the appeal, arguing that only the Provincial Fiscal could legally represent the municipality, and since the notice of appeal was signed only by Atty. Felix, the appeal was not perfected.
- The trial court overruled the objection and gave due course to the appeal.
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals:
- Calleja filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals, reiterating his objection.
- The Court of Appeals denied the motion, prompting Calleja to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Legal Basis for Municipal Attorney's Authority:
- The Municipal Council of Iriga created the office of Municipal Attorney under Resolution No. 36, series of 1961, pursuant to Section 3, paragraph 3(a) of Republic Act 2264 (Local Autonomy Act).
- The Municipal Attorney was authorized to represent the municipality in all cases where the municipality or its officers were parties.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Harmonization of Laws:
- Republic Act 2264 (Local Autonomy Act) modified Sections 1681 and 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code, which previously vested exclusive authority in the Provincial Fiscal to represent municipalities in court.
- The creation of the Municipal Attorney's office under Republic Act 2264 granted municipalities the autonomy to appoint their own legal counsel.
Authority of the Municipal Attorney:
- The Municipal Attorney, as the legal counsel of the municipality, has the authority to represent the municipality in court, including filing appeals.
- This authority is consistent with the purpose of Republic Act 2264 to increase local government autonomy.
Validity of the Notice of Appeal:
- The notice of appeal signed by Atty. Felix was valid because it was filed within the reglementary period and complied with the legal requirements.
- The Provincial Fiscal's absence in signing the notice did not invalidate the appeal, as the Municipal Attorney had independent authority to act on behalf of the municipality.
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:
- The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the notice of appeal was properly filed and perfected.