G.R. No. 105909 - Municipality of Pililla, Rizal vs. Court of Appeals

The Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, filed a petition questioning the CA resolution dismissing a petition for having been filed by a private counsel.
The petition also sought the nullification of the CA resolution denying the municipality’s motion for reconsideration.

On March 17, 1989, the Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal, Branch 80, rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 057-T in favor of the Municipality of Pililla against the Philippine Petroleum Corporation (PPC).

P5,301,385.00 as tax on business due (with additional accrual until final determination);
P3,321,730.00 for storage permit fee (plus accruing amounts), though later modified;
P12,120.00 for mayor’s permit fee (plus accruing amounts);
P1,010.00 for sanitary inspection fee (plus accruing amounts);
The costs of the suit.

On June 3, 1991, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 90776 affirmed the judgment with modifications:

On October 14, 1991, Atty. Felix E. Mendiola filed a motion for the examination of PPC’s gross sales for tax computation purposes.
On October 21, 1991, PPC submitted a manifestation that Pililla’s Mayor had received P11,457,907.00 as full satisfaction of the judgment, evidenced by executed release and quitclaim documents.
On October 31, 1991, the trial court denied the municipality’s motion for examination and execution on the ground that the judgment had been satisfied.

Atty. Mendiola filed a motion for reconsideration on November 21, 1991 claiming discrepancies between the amounts released and the total liability, including registered liens for consultancy and attorney’s fees.
The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on January 28, 1992.

On February 18, 1992, Atty. Mendiola, ostensibly representing the municipality, filed a petition for certiorari, which was docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No. 27504.
On March 2, 1992, PPC filed a motion questioning Atty. Mendiola’s authority to represent the municipality.
On March 31, 1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for having been filed by a private counsel, noting that a municipality must be represented by its proper legal officer.
A motion for reconsideration filed by the municipality was likewise denied on June 9, 1992.

Whether Atty. Mendiola, a private counsel, had proper authority to file a petition on behalf of the Municipality of Pililla.
Whether the municipality’s failure to show that its provincial fiscal was disqualified justified the use of private counsel.

Whether it was error for the Court of Appeals to consider, on appeal, the issue of lack of authority raised by PPC for the first time at that stage.
Whether dismissing the petition with an alternative remedy (i.e., filing a similar petition by the proper legal officer) was contrary to established jurisprudence.

Whether the municipality’s subsequent actions—such as entering a compromise agreement—implied the dismissal of Atty. Mendiola’s authority to represent it.
Whether a private counsel’s claim for fees can override the municipality’s right to self-representation or the use of a proper representative such as the municipal attorney or provincial fiscal.