Case Digest (G.R. No. 185544) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo v. Commission on Audit (750 Phil. 258, January 13, 2015), petitioner law firm was engaged in 2001 by Clark Development Corporation (CDC), a government-owned and controlled corporation, to handle labor cases. CDC first sought the written conformity and acquiescence of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), which denied the request on December 4, 2001, but upon reconsideration approved it conditionally on May 20, 2002, furnishing a pro-forma retainer contract for signature. Without securing final OGCC approval or the prior written concurrence of the Commission on Audit (COA), the law firm began rendering services, and CDC’s Board approved the engagement on June 28, 2002. In July 2005 CDC belatedly requested COA concurrence, but OGCC denied final approval in December 2005 for deviation from the pro-forma terms, and COA denied clearance in November 2006 for lack of both OGCC final approval and COA concurrence Case Digest (G.R. No. 185544) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Engagement of Private Counsel
- In 2001, Clark Development Corporation (CDC), a government-owned and controlled corporation, approached the law firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo to handle its labor cases. CDC sought prior approval from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). On December 4, 2001, the OGCC denied the request; CDC filed for reconsideration.
- On May 20, 2002, OGCC granted conditional approval, subject to execution and submission of a pro-forma retainership contract. Despite lacking final OGCC approval and no concurrence from the Commission on Audit (COA), the law firm commenced services. CDC’s Board approved the engagement on June 28, 2002, and assigned additional cases in 2003.
- Requests for COA Concurrence and OGCC Final Approval
- On July 13, 2005, CDC requested COA’s written concurrence of the executed retainership contract. COA informed CDC that OGCC’s final approval was prerequisite.
- CDC sought OGCC final approval on August 10, 2005. On December 22, 2005, OGCC denied, finding the pro-forma contract unimplemented and noting an unapproved per-case retainer arrangement. OGCC nonetheless acknowledged entitlement to quantum meruit, subject to board approval and auditing rules.
- COA Audit Proceedings and Appeals
- On November 9, 2006, COA’s Legal and Adjudication Sector issued a “Third Indorsement” disallowing clearance for payment, citing absence of prior OGCC approval and COA concurrence and delay of three years post-engagement.
- The law firm and CDC appealed; on September 27, 2007, COA en banc denied appeals, ruling CDC violated COA Circular No. 98-002 and Presidential Memorandum Circular No. 9 and that officials would be personally liable for fees. Motions for reconsideration were denied on November 5, 2008.
- Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court
- On December 19, 2008, Laguesma Magsalin filed a certiorari petition under COA Rule XI, Section 1, challenging COA’s decision and resolution disallowing its fees.
- Respondents filed comments, raising procedural (timeliness, real party-in-interest) and substantive objections (failure to secure OGCC and COA approval, applicability of Polloso and PHIVIDEC jurisprudence, quantum meruit and personal liability).
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Was the petition for certiorari filed within the reglementary period?
- Is the law firm the real party-in-interest in this certiorari proceeding?
- Substantive Issues
- Did COA err in denying CDC’s request for clearance to engage the law firm as private counsel?
- Did COA correctly apply Polloso v. Gangan and PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority v. Capitol Steel Corporation?
- Did COA err in disallowing payment on a quantum meruit basis and in ruling that payment is a personal liability of CDC officials?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)