Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 105909 June 28, 1994

MUNICIPALITY OF PILILLA, RIZAL, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO A. MARAVE, as Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal, and PHILIPPINE
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, respondents.

Felix E. Mendiola for petitioner.

Makalintal, Barot, Torres & Ibarra for respondent Philippine Petroleum

Corporation.

REGALADO, J.:

Petitioner questions and seeks the nullification of the resolution of respondent

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 27504 dated March 31, 1992, dismissing
the petition for having been filed by a private counsel, as well as its
succeeding resolution dated June 9, 1992, denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. 1

The records show that on March 17, 1989, the Regional Trial Court of Tanay,
Rizal, Branch 80, rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 057-T in favor of
plaintiff, now herein petitioner Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, against defendant,
now herein private respondent Philippine Petroleum Corporation (PPC, for
short), ordering therein defendant to pay said plaintiff (1) the amount of
P5,301,385.00 representing the tax on business due from the defendant
under Section 9(A) of Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 1 of said municipality for
the period from 1979 to 1983, inclusive, plus such amount of tax as may
accrue until final determination of the case; (2) storage permit fee in the
amount of P3,321,730.00 due from the defendant under Section 10,
paragraph Z(13)
(b-1-c) of the same municipal tax ordinance for the period from 1975 to 1986,
inclusive, plus the amount of said fee that may accrue until final determination
of the case; (3) mayor's permit fee due from the defendant under Section 10,
paragraph (P) (2) of said municipal tax ordinance from 1975 to 1984,
inclusive, in the amount of P12,120.00, plus such amount of the same fee as
may accrue until final determination of the case; (4) sanitary inspection fee in
the amount of P1,010.00 for the period from 1975 to 1984, plus the amount of
this fee that may accrue until final determination of the case; and (5) the costs
of suit. 2
On June 3, 1991, in G.R. No. 90776 this Court affirmed the aforesaid
judgment, with the modification that business taxes accruing prior to 1976 are
not to be paid by PPC because the same have prescribed, and that storage
fees are not also to be paid by PPC since the storage tanks are owned by
PPC and not by the municipality and, therefore, cannot be the bases of a
charge for service by the municipality. 3 This judgment became final and
executory on July 13, 1991 and the records were remanded to the trial court
for execution.

On October 14, 1991, in connection with the execution of said judgment, Atty.
Felix E. Mendiola filed a motion in behalf of plaintiff municipality with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal* for the examination of
defendant corporation's gross sales for the years 1976 to 1978 and 1984 to
1991 for the purpose of computing the tax on business imposed under the
Local Tax Code, as amended. On October 21, 1991, defendant corporation
filed a manifestation to the effect that on October 18, 1991, Pililla Mayor
Nicomedes Patenia received from it the sum of P11,457,907.00 as full
satisfaction of the above-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court, as
evidence by the release and quitclaim documents executed by said mayor.
Accordingly, on October 31, 1991 the court below issued an order denying
plaintiff municipality's motion for examination and execution of judgment on
the ground that the judgment in question had already been satisfied. 4

Thereafter, on November 21, 1991 Atty. Mendiola filed a motion for

reconsideration of the court's aforesaid order of October 31, 1991, claiming
that the total liability of defendant corporation to plaintiff municipality
amounted to P24,176,599.00, while the amount involved in the release and
quitclaim executed by Mayor Patenia was only P12,718,692; and that the said
mayor could not waive the balance which represents the taxes due under the
judgment to the municipality and over which judgment the law firm of Atty.
Mendiola had registered two liens for alleged consultancy services of 25%
and attorneys' fees of 25% which, when quantified and added, amount to
more than P12 million.
On January 28,1992, the trial court denied the aforesaid motion for
reconsideration. 5

On February 18, 1992, Atty. Mendiola, again ostensibly in behalf of herein

petitioner municipality, filed a petition for certiorari with us, which petition we
referred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition and was docketed
therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 27504. 6 On March 2, 1992, respondent PPC filed
a motion questioning Atty. Mendiola's authority to represent petitioner
municipality. 7 Consequently, on March 31, 1992 respondent Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition for having been filed by a private counsel in violation of
law and jurisprudence, but without prejudice to the filing of a similar petition by
the Municipality of Pililla through the proper provincial or municipal legal
officer. 8 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
Court of Appeals in its resolution of June 9, 1992. 9

Petitioner is once again before us with the following assignment of errors:

 1. It is an error for the Court of Appeals to consider private respondent's new
issue raised for the first time on appeal, as it could no longer be considered
on appeal, because it was never been (sic) raised in the court below.

2. It is an error for the Court of Appeals in dismissing (sic) the instant petition
with alternative remedy of filing similar petition as it is a departure from
established jurisprudence.

3. It is an error for the Court of Appeals to rule that the filing of the instant
petition by the private counsel is in violation of law and jurisprudence. 10

We find the present petition devoid of merit.

The Court of Appeals is correct in holding that Atty. Mendiola has no authority
to file a petition in behalf of and in the name of the Municipality of Pililla. The
matter of representation of a municipality by a private attorney has been
settled in Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 11 and reiterated in Province of
Cebu vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 12 where we ruled that private
attorneys cannot represent a province or municipality in lawsuits.

Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

Section 1683. Duty of fiscal to represent provinces and provincial

subdivisions in litigation. — The provincial fiscal shall represent the province
and any municipality or municipal district thereof in any court, except in cases
whereof original jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court or in cases where
the municipality or municipal district in question is a party adverse to the
provincial government or to some other municipality or municipal district in
the same province. When the interests of a provincial government and of any
political division thereof are opposed, the provincial fiscal shall act on behalf
of the province.

When the provincial fiscal is disqualified to serve any municipality or other

political subdivision of a province, a special attorney may be employed by its
council. 13

Under the above provision, complemented by Section 3, Republic Act No.

2264, the Local Autonomy Law, 14 only the provincial fiscal and the municipal
attorney can represent a province or municipality in their lawsuits. The
provision is mandatory. The municipality's authority to employ a private lawyer
is expressly limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified
to represent it. 15

For the aforementioned exception to apply, the fact that the provincial fiscal
was disqualified to handle the municipality's case must appear on
record. 16 In the instant case, there is nothing in the records to show that the
provincial fiscal is disqualified to act as counsel for the Municipality of Pililla on
appeal, hence the appearance of herein private counsel is without authority of
law.

The submission of Atty. Mendiola that the exception is broad enough to

include situations wherein the provincial fiscal refuses to handle the case
cannot be sustained. The fiscal's refusal to represent the municipality is not a
legal justification for employing the services of private counsel. Unlike a
practicing lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a 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, pursuant to Section 1679
of the Revised Administrative Code. 17

It is also significant that the lack of authority of herein counsel,

Atty. Mendiola, was even raised by the municipality itself in its comment and
opposition to said counsel's motion for execution of his lien, which was filed
with the court a quo by the office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal in behalf
of said municipality. 18

The contention of Atty. Mendiola that private respondent cannot raise for the
first time on appeal his lack of authority to represent the municipality is
untenable. The legality of his representation can be questioned at any stage
of the proceedings. In the cases hereinbefore cited, 19 the issue of lack of
authority of private counsel to represent a municipality was only raised for the
first time in the proceedings for the collection of attorney's fees for services
rendered in the particular case, after the decision in that case had become
final and executory and/or had been duly executed.

Furthermore, even assuming that the representation of the municipality by

Atty. Mendiola was duly authorized, said authority is deemed to have been
revoked by the municipality when the latter, through the municipal mayor and
without said counsel's participation, entered into a compromise agreement
with herein private respondent with regard to the execution of the judgment in
its favor and thereafter filed personally with the court below two pleadings
entitled and constitutive of a "Satisfaction of Judgment" and a "Release and
Quitclaim". 20

A client, by appearing personally and presenting a motion by himself, is

considered to have impliedly dismissed his lawyer. Herein counsel cannot
pretend to be authorized to continue representing the municipality since the
latter is entitled to dispense with his services at any time. Both at common law
and under Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a client may dismiss his
lawyer at any time or at any stage of the proceedings, and there is nothing
to prevent a litigant from appearing before the court to conduct his own
litigation. 21

The client has also an undoubted right to compromise a suit without the
intervention of his lawyer. 22 Even the lawyers' right to fees from their clients
may not be invoked by the lawyers themselves as a ground for disapproving
or holding in abeyance the approval of a compromise agreement. The lawyers
concerned can enforce their rights in the proper court in an appropriate
proceeding in accordance with the Rules of Court, but said rights may not be
used to prevent the approval of the compromise agreement. 23
The apprehension of herein counsel that it is impossible that the municipality
will file a similar petition, considering that the mayor who controls its
legislative body will not take the initiative, is not only conjectural but without
factual basis. Contrary to his pretensions, there is presently a manifestation
and motion pending with the trial court filed by the aforesaid municipal mayor
for the withdrawal of the "Satisfaction of Judgment" and the "Release and
Quitclaim" 24 previously filed in the case therein as earlier mentioned.

WHEREFORE, the petition at bar is DENIED for lack of merit and the
judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

#
Footnotes

1 Penned by Justice Alicia V. Sempio Diy, with Justices Pedro A. Ramirez

and Ricardo P. Galvez concurring.

2 Rollo, CA-G.R. SP. No. 27504, 34.

3 Ibid., id., 46.

* No presiding judge having been commissioned as of that date for the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Tanay, Rizal, the case was referred to this
branch presided over by respondent executive judge of the branches therein
(Rollo, CA-G.R. SP. No. 27504, 49-50).

4 Ibid., id., 22.

5 Ibid., id., 23-24.

6 Ibid., id., 92.

7 Ibid., id., 93-94.

8 Ibid., id., 16-28.

9 Ibid., id., 29.

10 Ibid., id., 5.

11 G.R. No. 53766, October 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 728.

12 G.R. No. 72841, January 29, 1987, 147 SCRA 447.

13 The Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292) provides:

Sec. 9. Provincial/City Prosecution Offices. — The Provincial and

City Fiscal's Office established in each of the provinces and cities
 pursuant to law, is retained and renamed Provincial/City Prosecution
Office. It shall be headed by a Provincial Prosecutor or City
Prosecutor, as the case may be, assisted by such number of
Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutors as fixed and/or authorized by
law. The position titles of Provincial and City Fiscal and of Assistant
Provincial and City Fiscal are hereby abolished.

All provincial/city prosecution offices shall continue to discharge their

functions under existing law.

All provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants shall be

appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the
Secretary.

14 This section states that the municipal attorney, as the head of the legal
division or office of a municipality, "shall act as legal counsel of the
municipality and perform such duties and exercise such powers as may be
assigned to him by the council."

15 Municipality of Bocaue, et al. vs. Manotok, 93 Phil. 173 (1953); Enriquez,

Sr. vs. Gimenez, etc., 107 Phil. 932 (1960); De Guia vs. The Auditor General,
et al.,
L-29824, 44 SCRA 169.

16 De Guia vs. The Auditor General, et al., ante.

17 Enriquez, Sr. vs. Gimenez, etc., supra; De Guia vs. The Auditor General,
et al., supra.

18 Rollo, 41-45.

19 Enriquez, Sr. vs. Gimenez, etc., supra; De Guia vs. The Auditor General,
et al., supra; Province of Cebu vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., supra.

20 Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 27504, 59-62.

21 Rustia vs. The Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, et al., 44
Phil. 62 (1922).

22 Rustia vs. The Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, et al.,
ante; Aro vs. Nañawa, et al., L-24163, April 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 1090.

23 Jesalva, et al. vs. Bautista, et al., 105 Phil. 348 (1959); Cabildo, et al. vs.
Navarro, et al., L-31865, November 26, 1973, 54 SCRA 26.

24 Rollo, 57-59.