GUMARU vs QUIRINO STATE COLLEGE - On the issue of legal representation, Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of

Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987,
FACTS: provides:

- C.T. Gumaru Construction and Quirino State College, entered into an Agreement for The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its
the construction of the state colleges building in Quirino Province. agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When authorized by the
President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent government owned or
- On October 17, 1997, C.T. Gumaru Construction, filed a complaint for damages controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office
before the RTC of Quezon City against the state college, asking for expected profits, of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers.
escalation costs of construction materials and supplies, value of plaintiffs bodega xxxx
allegedly demolished by the defendants, and damages.
- The OSG cannot refuse to represent the government, its agencies, instrumentalities,
- RTC ruled in favor of Gumaru. Atty. Aggabao received a copy of the decision, but officials and agents without a just and valid reason. He should not desist from
failed to appeal the same, and the decision became final and executory. A writ of appearing before the Court even in those cases where his opinions may be
execution was then issued. inconsistent with the government or any of its agents he is expected to represent. As
in the case of fiscals or prosecutors, bias or prejudice and animosity or hostility do
not constitute legal and valid excuses for inhibition.[23] Unlike a practicing lawyer
- On January 11, 2002, the OSG entered its appearance for the first time as counsel who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal or prosecutor, or the Solicitor
for the defendants. It filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on the following General in the case at bar, cannot refuse to perform his functions without violating
grounds: (a) defendants were not duly represented in court, since the OSG was not his oath of office. Refusal to perform the duty is compellable by a writ of mandamus.
notified of the proceedings; and (b) writs of execution may not be issued against
government funds and properties to satisfy court judgments.
- The magnitude of the non-representation by the OSG is nowhere more apparent than
in the case at bar. Instead of having been represented by an official learned in the
- The RTC denied the motion to quash the writ of execution. Without ruling on the issue law who will promote and protect the public weal taking into consideration the vast
of the defendants alleged lack of legal representation, the court ruled that the concerns of the sovereign which it is committed to serve, respondent state college
properties of the state college may be seized under the writ of execution, since it is was instead represented by a private lawyer who made no move to protect its
an incorporated agency of the government given specific powers to sue and be sued. interests except to file a motion to dismiss the complaint filed against the state
college, which was eventually denied by the trial court.
- The OSG filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which was granted. In quashing
the writ of execution, the CA ruled that although the funds and properties of - No answer to the complaint was filed notwithstanding due receipt of the order
government agencies with personalities separate and distinct from the government directing its filing, as a consequence of which the state college was declared in
are not exempt from execution or garnishment, the rule does not apply where the default. The order of default itself was not reconsidered, no move whatsoever having
incorporated government agency concerned is performing a vital governmental been made in that direction. The plaintiff was allowed to present its evidence ex-
function, like herein state college. In such cases, the money claim should be filed first parte.
with the COA as provided in Presidential Decree No. 1445, otherwise known as the
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. - When the decision was rendered adjudging the state college and its co-defendant,
ISSUE: Julian A. Alvarez, liable to the plaintiff, no effort was made to appeal the decision
notwithstanding due receipt of a copy thereof by Atty. Aggabao on March 6, 2001.
- W/N the lack of proper legal representation was enough to nullify the proceedings. Clear, therefore, was the utter failure of justice insofar as respondent state college is
YES concerned. It was as if it was not represented by counsel at all.

HELD: - While it may be argued that the officials of respondent state college should have
informed the OSG of the suit filed against the state college, and that it was their fault
or negligence that the OSG was not informed in the first place, it is settled, however,
that the principle of estoppel does not operate against the government for the act of
its agents or their inaction. The State has to protect its interests and cannot be bound
by, or estopped by the mistakes or negligent acts of its officials or agents, much more,
non-suited as a result thereof. The legality of legal representation can be raised and
questioned at any stage of the proceedings.
PETITION DENIED. CASE REMANDED BACK TO RTC