Case Digest (G.R. No. 105909)
Facts:
Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Arturo A. Marave, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal, and Philippine Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 105909, June 28, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.The underlying litigation began in Civil Case No. 057-T before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanay, Rizal, Branch 80, where on March 17, 1989 the trial court entered judgment in favor of Municipality of Pililla against Philippine Petroleum Corporation (PPC) for various municipal taxes, fees and costs (business tax, storage permit fee, mayor's permit fee, sanitary inspection fee) covering specified years. The RTC assessment totaled several millions of pesos. On June 3, 1991 this Court, in G.R. No. 90776, affirmed that judgment with modifications: business taxes accruing prior to 1976 had prescribed and storage fees could not be imposed because the storage tanks were owned by PPC; the judgment became final and executory on July 13, 1991 and the records were remanded for execution.
In execution proceedings, on October 14, 1991 Atty. Felix E. Mendiola, acting ostensibly for the Municipality, moved the RTC, Branch 78, Morong, for an examination of PPC’s gross sales to compute business tax for several years. PPC responded on October 21 that it had paid Mayor Nicomedes Patenia P11,457,907.00 as full satisfaction, supported by a release and quitclaim executed by the mayor. The RTC, by order of October 31, 1991, denied the Municipality’s execution motion on the ground that the judgment had been satisfied. Atty. Mendiola moved for reconsideration on November 21, 1991, asserting a larger liability and claiming liens registered by his firm for consultancy and attorneys’ fees; the RTC denied reconsideration on January 28, 1992.
On February 18, 1992 Atty. Mendiola filed a petition for certiorari/prohibition with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 27504) challenging the RTC’s orders in the execution proceedings. PPC filed a motion on March 2, 1992 questioning Atty. Mendiola’s authority to represent the Municipality. On March 31, 1992 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because it had been filed by a private counsel in violation of law and jurisprudence, but without prejudice to the Municipality’s filing a similar petition through the proper provincial or municipal legal officer; its denial of reconsideration followed on June 9, 1992.
The Municipality sought review in this Court, assigning errors that (1) the Court of Appeals considered a defense raised for the first time on appeal; (2) the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in considering private respondent’s lack-of-authority objection when it was raised for the first time on appeal?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition while allowing the Municipality to file a similar petition through its proper legal officer?
- Was the filing of the petition by private counsel Atty. Felix E. Mendiola in the name of the Municipality of Pilill...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)