Case Digest (G.R. No. 99425)
Facts:
Antonio C. Ramos, Rosalinda M. Perez, Norma C. Castillo and Baliuag Market Vendors Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Camilo O. Montesa, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 19, and Municipality of Baliuag, G.R. No. 99425, March 03, 1997, the Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (private vendors and their association) filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. 264‑M‑9) on April 18, 1990 seeking declaration of nullity of two municipal ordinances and a municipal lease contract. During early proceedings the Provincial Fiscal (prosecutor) appeared for the Municipality of Baliuag and opposed the petition; a writ of preliminary injunction was issued on May 9, 1990. On May 3, 1990 the Provincial Fiscal and the Provincial Attorney, Oliviano D. Regalado, filed an Answer for the municipality.
At pretrial (May 28, 1990) private counsel Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos appeared, manifesting he was counsel for the Municipality; thereafter he filed motions including a motion to dissolve injunction and submitted a formal offer of evidence. On June 18, 1990 Atty. Regalado appeared as collaborating counsel; subsequent hearings revealed active participation by Atty. Romanillos in the municipality’s defense. Petitioners first challenged Romanillos’s authority on August 10 and 15, 1990 and filed a written motion (Aug. 20) to disqualify him and to declare null the proceedings he had participated in.
On August 22, 1990 Atty. Romanillos and Atty. Regalado filed a joint motion stating Romanillos was withdrawing as municipal counsel and that Atty. Regalado, as collaborating counsel, adopted the entire proceedings undertaken by Romanillos. The trial court (RTC, Branch 19) denied petitioners’ motion to disqualify Romanillos and, by order dated September 19, 1990, granted Atty. Regalado’s motion to adopt the proceedings; the court reasoned petitioners had acquiesced and that the adoption cured any defect. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied October 19, 1990. The Court of Appeals (Eighth Division) denied due course t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under existing law, who is authorized to represent a municipality in its lawsuits?
- If an unauthorized private counsel represents a municipality, can a subsequent adoption of that counsel’s acts by the provincial attorney validate the proceedings?
- Must a motion withdrawing the appearance of an unauthorized counsel and its adoption by an authorized counsel comply with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)