Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v.

Court of Appeals
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a judgment of the CA
Facts:
The RTC of Tanay, Rizal rendered judgment ordering the Philippine Petroleum
Corporation (PPC) to pay the Municipality of Pililla (municipality) business taxes and other fees.
The judgment was affirmed by the SC and became final and executor. The case was remanded
to the RTC for execution.
In connection with the execution of judgment, Atty. Felix Mendiola filed a motion in behalf
of the municipality for the examination of PPCs gross sales for the purpose of computing its
business taxes. PPC filed a manifestation before the RTC to the effect that Mayor Patenia of
Pililla received from it P11.5M as full satisfaction of the judgment as evidenced by the release
and quit claim documents executed by the said mayor. The RTC issued an order denying Atty.
Mendiolas motionfor examination and execution of judgment.
Atty. Mendiola filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the total liability amounted
to P24.2M while the amount received by the mayor was only P12.7M. He asserted that the
mayor cannot waive the balance of the judgment over which his law firm had registered two
liens for alleged consultancy services and attorneys fees amounting to more than P12M. The
RTC, however, denied his MR.
A petition for certiorari was filed by Atty. Mendiola which was referred to the CA for
appropriate action. PPC filed a motion questioning the authority of Atty. Mendiola to represent
the municipality. The CA dismissed the petition for having been filed by a private counsel in
violation of the law and jurisprudence but without prejudice to the filing of a similar petition by
the municipality thru the proper provincial or municipal legal officer.
Atty. Mendiola filed a petition before the SC to assail the decision of the CA.
Issue: WON Atty. Mendiola, a private counsel, has authority can file an action in court for and in
behalf of the municipality of Pililla
Held: No. Atty. Mendiola has no authority to file an action in court in behalf and in the name of
the Municipality of Pililla.
1. Private attorneys cannot represent a province or municipality in lawsuits.
Sec. 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that the provincial fiscal shall
represent the province or any municipality or municipal district thereof in any court
except (a) in cases whereof original jurisdiction is vested in the SC or (b) in cases where
the municipality or municipal district is a party adverse to the provincial government or to
some municipality or municipal district in the same province. When the provincial fiscal is
disqualified, a special attorney may be employed by the municipal council.
Hence, only the provincial fiscal or municipal attorney can represent a province or
municipality in their lawsuits. The provision is mandatory. The municipalitys
authority to employ a private lawyer is limited only to situations where the

provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it. For this exception to apply, the fact
that the provincial fiscal was disqualified must appear on record.
2. The fiscals refusal to represent the municipality is not a legal justification for employing
the services of private counsel.
Unlike a practicing lawyer who has a right to refuse employment, fiscal cannot refuse
to perform his functions on grounds not provided for by law without violating his
oath of office.
Instead of engaging the services of a special attorney, the municipal council should
request the Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of
the provincial fiscal who has declined to handle and prosecute its case in court.
3. The legality of a private counsels representation can be questioned at any stage of the
proceedings.

Digest submitted by:

Gian Carla V. Hernal
00-07494, 5-E