MAYOR OF PILILLA V. HON. CA.

FACTS:

The RTC Tanay, rendered judgment in a Civil case requiring the Philippine
Petroleum Corporation to pay a business tax amounting (5,301,385.00)
covering period from 1979 to 1983; 2) storage permit fee covering period year
1975 to 1986; 3) Mayor’s permit fee covering period from 1975 to 1984; 4)
sanitary inspection from 1975 to 1984 and costs of suit.
The CA affirmed the said decision with modification that business taxes
accruing prior to 1976 are not to be paid by the Petroleum Company because
the same have prescribed, and the storage fees are not also to be paid by
them because the storage tanks are owned by the petroleum company, and
not by the municipality. This became Final & executory.
In connection of the court’s decision, Atty. Felix Mendiola in behalf of
Municipality of Pililla filed a motion before the RTC for the examination of
Petroleum Corporation’s gross sales for the years 1976 to 1978 & 1984 to
1991 for purposes of computing tax on business under Local Tax Code.
The defendant petroleum corporation filed a manifestation that in 1991 Pililla
Mayor received the sum of P11,457,907 as full satisfaction of the said
judgment of the Supreme Court as evidence by the release & quitclaim
documents executed by the said mayor.
RTC deny the plaintiff’s motion for examination on the ground that the
judgment in question had already been satisfied.
Therefore, Atty. Mendiola filed MR of the aforesaid order claiming that the
total liability of Petroleum corporation amounted to 24,176,599 while the
amount involved in the release and quitclaim was only 12,718,692 and the
said mayor could not waive the balance which represents the taxes.
RTC denied the MR.
Atty. Mendiola filed a petition for certiorari before the CA .
On the otherhand, Petroleum corporation filed a motion questioning Atty.
Felix Mendiola’s authority to represent petitioner municipality.
CA dismissed the petition of Atty. Mendiola for having filed it by a private
counsel.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Felix Mendiola has authority to represent and file
an action in court in behalf of the municipality of pililla.
HELD: No, Atty. Felix Mendiola has no authority to represent and file and
action in court in behalf of Mun. of Pililla. Because 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibra

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. For
the aforementioned exception to apply, the fact that the provincial fiscal was
disqualified to handle the municipality's case must appear on
record.

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.