G.R. No. 97787 - Bagatsing vs. San Juan

The case originated when former members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Saguiran (Macmod P. Masorong, Amrosi Macote Samporna, Alanie L. Dalama, Hassan P. Amai-Kurot, and Cadalay S. Rataban) filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of Lanao del Sur.
The petition sought to compel the Municipality of Saguiran to pay the aggregate amount of ₱726,000.00 as unpaid terminal leave benefits in accordance with Section 5 of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Nos. 41 (1998) and 14 (1999).

The Municipality of Saguiran, responding through its Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses and a Counterclaim (signed by Municipal Mayor Hadjah Rasmia B. Macabago and Municipal Treasurer Hadji Mautinter Dimacaling), sought dismissal of the petition.
On January 6, 2009, the RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the relief sought was not a ministerial duty, explaining that the payment of terminal leave benefits required an ordinary process of verification, approval, or disapproval by the municipal officials.
Despite the dismissal, the RTC directed the municipality to include the claims in its general or special budget for the year 2009.

Dissatisfied with the RTC’s directive focusing on budgeting, the Municipality of Saguiran partially appealed the RTC order to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On December 14, 2009, the CA issued a notice requiring the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file a memorandum on behalf of the municipality within a non-extendible period of 30 days.
The OSG moved for a suspension of the filing period on the ground that it had not received any pertinent documents or pleadings, requesting an extension of 30 days from receipt of such documents.
On April 23, 2010, the CA denied the suspension motion, instead giving the OSG a non-extendible period of 90 days from notice to file the memorandum.

On August 5, 2010, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion requesting to be excused from filing the memorandum.
The motion was based on the argument that the OSG lacked the legal authority to represent the Municipality of Saguiran, citing Article XI(3)(i) of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code or LGC), which mandates representation by the local government unit’s legal officer.
On October 18, 2010, the CA issued a Resolution denying the motion. The Resolution discussed that the OSG's mandate under the Administrative Code – which covers representation of the Government and its instrumentalities – was broad enough to encompass the representation of a local government unit.
A subsequent resolution dated August 25, 2011, denied the OSG’s motion to be excused, reaffirming the requirement that the OSG file the memorandum.

The OSG filed a Petition for Certiorari, asserting that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The key contention was that compelling the OSG to represent the Municipality of Saguiran (a local government unit) was beyond its legal authority.
The OSG argued that under the LGC, local government units must be represented by their designated legal officers, not by the OSG, whose mandate is confined to representing the Government of the Philippines, its agencies, and its instrumentalities.

Whether the OSG had the authority, under the Administrative Code, to represent the Municipality of Saguiran in its appeal before the CA.
Whether the CA erred in compelling the OSG to file a memorandum on behalf of a local government unit that is legally obligated to be represented by its legal officer.

Whether the broad mandate of the OSG under the Administrative Code could be reconciled with the specific provisions of the Local Government Code regarding legal representation of local government units.
Whether the special provisions of the LGC, which limit representation to the local government’s legal officer (or a special legal officer under strict conditions), prevail over the general authority granted to the OSG.

Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by ignoring the statutory requirement that local government units be represented by their designated legal officers.
Whether the CA’s decision effectively exceeded or misconstrued its jurisdiction in ordering the OSG to represent the municipality.