Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 303 views

    Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mervic Al
    The Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal ruled in favor of the Municipality of Pililla, Rizal in a case against the Philippine Petroleum Corporation, ordering PPC to pay Pililla over P5 million. PPC claimed it paid the amount to Pililla Mayor Nicomedes Patenia in full satisfaction, but Atty. Mendiola, on behalf of Pililla, claimed more was still owed. The Supreme Court ruled that only the provincial fiscal or municipal attorney can legally represent a municipality in court unless the fiscal is disqualified, and no such disqualification was shown. Even if Atty. Mendiola had authority, it was revoked when Pililla compromised with PPC regarding execution of the judgment

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mervic Al
    303 views1 page
    The Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal ruled in favor of the Municipality of Pililla, Rizal in a case against the Philippine Petroleum Corporation, ordering PPC to pay Pililla over P5 million. PPC claimed it paid the amount to Pililla Mayor Nicomedes Patenia in full satisfaction, but Atty. Mendiola, on behalf of Pililla, claimed more was still owed. The Supreme Court ruled that only the provincial fiscal or municipal attorney can legally represent a municipality in court unless the fiscal is disqualified, and no such disqualification was shown. Even if Atty. Mendiola had authority, it was revoked when Pililla compromised with PPC regarding execution of the judgment

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal ruled in favor of the Municipality of Pililla, Rizal in a case against the Philippine Petroleum Corporation, ordering PPC to pay Pililla over P5 million. PPC claimed it paid the amount to Pililla Mayor Nicomedes Patenia in full satisfaction, but Atty. Mendiola, on behalf of Pililla, claimed more was still owed. The Supreme Court ruled that only the provincial fiscal or municipal attorney can legally represent a municipality in court unless the fiscal is disqualified, and no such disqualification was shown. Even if Atty. Mendiola had authority, it was revoked when Pililla compromised with PPC regarding execution of the judgment

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    303 views1 page

    Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mervic Al
    The Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal ruled in favor of the Municipality of Pililla, Rizal in a case against the Philippine Petroleum Corporation, ordering PPC to pay Pililla over P5 million. PPC claimed it paid the amount to Pililla Mayor Nicomedes Patenia in full satisfaction, but Atty. Mendiola, on behalf of Pililla, claimed more was still owed. The Supreme Court ruled that only the provincial fiscal or municipal attorney can legally represent a municipality in court unless the fiscal is disqualified, and no such disqualification was shown. Even if Atty. Mendiola had authority, it was revoked when Pililla compromised with PPC regarding execution of the judgment

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MUNICIPALITY OF PILILLA, RIZAL, petitioner, vs.

    FULL CASE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO A. MARAVE, as


    TITLE Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal,
    and PHILIPPINE PETROLEUM CORPORATION, respondents.
    G.R. NO. G.R. No. 105909
    DATE June 28, 1994
    PONENTE Regalado, J.
    Only the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a
    province or municipality in their lawsuits. The provision is mandatory.
    DOCTRINE The municipality’s authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly
    limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to
    represent it.

    FACTS:
    The Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal, rendered judgment in favor of Municipality of Pililla,
    Rizal, against Philippine Petroleum Corporation (PPC), ordering therein defendant to pay
    said plaintiff the amount of P5,301,385.00 representing the tax on business, storage permit
    fee, mayor’s permit fee, sanitary inspection fee and the costs of suit. The judgment became
    final and executory but PCC filed a manifestation that Pililla Mayor Nicomedes Patenia
    received from it the sum as full satisfaction of the judgment of the Supreme Court, as
    evidence by the release and quitclaim documents executed by said mayor. Hence, the court
    issued an order denying plaintiff municipality’s motion for examination and execution of
    judgment.
    Atty. Mendiola filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the total liability of PCC
    amounted to P24,176,599.00, while the amount involved in the release and quitclaim
    executed by Mayor Patenia was only P12,718,692; to which judgment Atty. Mendiola had
    registered two liens for alleged consultancy services of 25% and attorneys’ fees of 25%
    which, amounting to more than P12 million.
    ISSUE/S:
    1. Whether or not Atty. Mendiola has authority to file a petition in behalf of and in the
    name of the Municipality of Pililla.
    RULING:
    No. 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 exception to apply, the fact that the provincial fiscal was
    disqualified to handle the municipality’s case must appear on record.
    The fiscal’s refusal to represent the municipality is not a legal justification for employing the
    services of private counsel. 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.
    Furthermore, even assuming that Atty. Mendiola was duly authorized, said authority is
    deemed to have been revoked when the municipality entered into a compromise agreement
    with PCC with regard to the execution of the judgment in its favor.

    You might also like