Case Summary (G.R. No. 199027)
Petitioner and Respondent Roles
The OSG sought relief by petition for certiorari assailing CA resolutions that denied its motion to be excused from filing a memorandum on behalf of the Municipal Government of Saguiran in the pending CA appeal. The Municipality had been a respondent in the original mandamus petition at the RTC.
Key Dates
- RTC Order dismissing the mandamus petition: January 6, 2009.
- CA notice directing the OSG to file a memorandum: December 14, 2009.
- CA denial of OSG’s motion for suspension and grant of 90‑day period to file the memorandum: April 23, 2010 (with non‑extendible 90 days).
- OSG motion to be excused from representing the Municipality: August 5, 2010.
- CA Resolution denying OSG’s motion: October 18, 2010.
- CA Resolution denying reconsideration: August 25, 2011.
- Supreme Court decision resolving the certiorari petition: June 9, 2014.
Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Applicable Law and Authorities
Primary statutory and regulatory provisions cited and applied: Administrative Code of 1987, Section 35, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 (defining OSG powers and functions); Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), Book III, Title V, Article XI, Section 481 (powers and duties of the local government unit legal officer). Pertinent jurisprudence cited in the decision: Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals; Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Green Asia Construction & Development Corporation; Social Justice Society v. Atienza; Vinzons‑Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation; Urbano v. Chavez.
Factual Background
Former members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Saguiran filed a petition for mandamus in the RTC seeking payment of P726,000.00 for unpaid terminal leave benefits under Civil Service Commission memoranda. The Municipality answered and sought dismissal. The RTC dismissed the mandamus petition on the ground that the act sought was not ministerial but nevertheless directed inclusion of the claims in the Municipality’s 2009 budget. The Municipality appealed the RTC order in part to the CA.
Procedural History before the Court of Appeals
The CA required the OSG to file a memorandum for the Municipality within a non‑extendible period. The OSG initially sought suspension or an extension on the ground it had not received case documents; the CA denied that motion and fixed a non‑extendible 90‑day period to file the memorandum. The OSG then filed a motion to be excused from representing the Municipality, asserting it lacked legal authority to do so because the Local Government Code requires local government units to be represented by their legal officers. The CA denied that motion and denied reconsideration, prompting the OSG’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by compelling the OSG to represent the Municipal Government of Saguiran in the CA proceedings despite statutory provisions designating a local government unit’s legal officer as its counsel.
Petitioner’s Argument
The OSG argued that, under the Local Government Code (RA 7160), the legal officer of a local government unit has the duty to represent the unit in all civil actions and special proceedings, and that local government units are barred from engaging counsel other than their designated legal officers except under the limited conditions specified by the LGC. Accordingly, the OSG maintained it had no legal authority to represent the Municipality.
Court’s Analysis and Rationale
The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious. It began by acknowledging the broad language of Section 35 of the Administrative Code, which generally defines the OSG’s mandate to represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents. However, the Court emphasized the rule of statutory harmonization: general statutes must be construed to accommodate special statutes on the same subject matter. The Local Government Code, a special statute governing representation of local government units, expressly vests the duty to represent an LGU in court in the LGU’s legal officer (Sec. 481) and limits the engagement of other counsel to narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., deployment of a special legal officer only where a component city or municipality is adverse to the provincial government or another component city/municipality). The Court applied established principles that a special law prevails over a general law when both address the same subject matter, and it cited precedent to that effect. The Court further noted jurisprudential limits on the OSG’s authority (e.g., Urbano v. Chavez), d
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 199027)
Case Citation and Participating Court
- Reported as 735 Phil. 623, First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- G.R. No. 199027, decided June 09, 2014.
- Decision authored by Justice Reyes; Chief Justice Sereno (Chairperson), and Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., concurred.
Nature of Proceeding and Relief Sought
- Petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
- The OSG sought relief to assail the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated October 18, 2010 and August 25, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 02816-MIN.
- The OSG challenged the CA’s denial of its motion to be excused from filing a memorandum or other pleadings on behalf of the Municipal Government of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur (Municipality of Saguiran).
Antecedent Facts — Underlying Case in the RTC
- Petitioners in the underlying case were 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.
- The petition filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur was for mandamus to compel the Municipality of Saguiran to pay P726,000.00 in aggregate unpaid terminal leave benefits.
- The terminal leave benefits were claimed under Section 5 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Nos. 41, Series of 1998 and 14, Series of 1999.
- The Municipality of Saguiran filed a Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, signed by Municipal Mayor Hadjah Rasmia B. Macabago and Municipal Treasurer Hadji Mautinter Dimacaling.
RTC Ruling and Directives
- On January 6, 2009, the RTC, via an Order issued by Acting Presiding Judge Rasad G. Balindong, dismissed the petition on the ground that the act sought was not a ministerial duty.
- The RTC explained that payment of terminal leave benefits required the ordinary process of verification, approval or disapproval by municipal officials.
- Despite dismissal, the RTC directed the Municipality of Saguiran to include the subject terminal leave claims in its general or special budget for 2009.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Procedural Events
- 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 OSG to file a memorandum for the Municipality of Saguiran within a non-extendible period of 30 days.
- The OSG initially moved for suspension of the period and asked for 30 days from receipt of the case documents, explaining it had not received any document or pleading in connection with the case.
- On April 23, 2010, the CA denied the OSG’s motion because the relief sought was not allowed under the Rules of Court, and instead gave 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 on the ground it lacked legal authority to represent the Municipality of Saguiran, citing Article XI(3)(i) of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991, LGC), which requires local government units to be represented by their legal officer.
- On October 18, 2010, the CA issued a Resolution denying the OSG’s motion; the CA reasoned that local government units are part of the Government of the Philippines and cited Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, et al., for the proposition that a local government unit in the performance of political functions is an agency of the Republic and acts for the Republic’s benefit.
- The OSG moved for reconsideration of the CA’s denial; the CA denied reconsideration via its Resolution dated August 25, 2011.
Ground of the Present Petition to the Supreme Court
- The OSG’s stated ground: the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in compelling the OSG to represent the Municipal Government of Saguiran, a local government unit (LGU), in its lawsuit.
- The OSG argued that the legal officer of an LGU must represent it in its lawsuits, invoking the LGC provisions and jurisprudence barring LGUs from obtaining the services of a lawyer other than their designated legal officers.
Statutory Provisions and Sources Relied Upon by the Supreme Court
- Administrative Code of 1987, Section 35, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12: defines powers and functions of the OSG, including representing the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in litigation, and when authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, representing government-owned or controlled corporations; states the OSG shall constitute the law office of the Government and discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer, with specific powers including representing the Government in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in criminal proceedings and representing the Government and its officers in civil actions and special proceedings where the Government or any officer in his official capacity is a party.
- Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), Book III, Title V, Article XI, Section 481: prescribes qualifications, term, powers and duties of the legal officer of an LGU; provides that appointment of a legal officer is mandatory for provincial and city governments and optional for municipal governments; designates the legal officer as chief legal counsel in charge of legal servi