Case Digest (G.R. No. 227356)
Facts:
In Republic of the Philippines v. Atty. Richard B. Rambuyong (G.R. No. 167810, October 4, 2010), Alfredo Y. Chu filed Civil Case No. 1-197 for collection of money and/or damages against the National Power Corporation (NPC) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, Branch 24. Chu was represented by Atty. Richard B. Rambuyong, then Vice-Mayor and a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Ipil. NPC moved for the inhibition of Atty. Rambuyong under Section 90(b)(1) of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), arguing that NPC, being a government-owned or controlled corporation, is an “instrumentality of the government” and thus Atty. Rambuyong, as a sanggunian member and member of the Bar, is prohibited from appearing against it. On January 4, 2002, the RTC denied the motion, holding that government-owned or controlled corporations are excluded from the term “agency or instrumentality of the government” in Section 90(b)(1). NPC’s motion for reconsideration wa...Case Digest (G.R. No. 227356)
Facts:
- Background of the Civil Case
- Alfredo Y. Chu filed Civil Case No. 1-197 against the National Power Corporation (NPC) for collection of money and/or damages.
- The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, Branch 24.
- Counsel and Motion for Inhibition
- Atty. Richard B. Rambuyong, then Vice-Mayor and sanggunian member of Ipil, appeared as counsel for Chu.
- NPC moved for his inhibition under Section 90(b)(1) of R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code), arguing that sanggunian members may not appear as counsel against any “office, agency, or instrumentality of the government,” a category NPC claimed to occupy as a GOCC.
- Ruling of the RTC
- The RTC denied the motion for inhibition, holding that “instrumentality of the government” in Section 90(b)(1) does not include government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs).
- It reasoned that the framers of R.A. 7160 expressly included GOCCs elsewhere and would have done so again if intended.
- The dispositive portion declared Atty. Rambuyong not disqualified to continue as counsel. Reconsideration was denied.
- Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
- NPC petitioned for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
- On May 20, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, finding no capricious or arbitrary exercise of power.
- The CA denied NPC’s motion for reconsideration on April 13, 2005.
- Petition for Review to the Supreme Court
- NPC contends that both the Local Government Code and the 1987 Administrative Code require Atty. Rambuyong to inhibit himself when representing a party against NPC.
- The core issue is whether NPC is an “instrumentality of the government” under Section 90(b)(1) of R.A. 7160.
Issues:
- Scope of Section 90(b)(1), R.A. 7160
- Whether sanggunian members–lawyers are prohibited from appearing as counsel against NPC.
- Whether NPC falls within the term “instrumentality of the government.”
- Statutory and Jurisprudential Interpretation
- The relevance of Section 2 of the 1987 Administrative Code in defining “instrumentality.”
- The applicability of past decisions (e.g., Bacani, Maceda) on the meaning of government instrumentalities.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)