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.

FACTS

The Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, obtained a favorable judgment from the Regional Trial Court against Philippine Petroleum Corporation (PPC) for unpaid local taxes and fees. The Supreme Court affirmed this judgment with modifications, and it became final and executory. During execution, Atty. Felix E. Mendiola, a private counsel, filed a motion on behalf of the municipality for the examination of PPC’s gross sales to compute the tax due. PPC manifested that it had already paid the municipality, as evidenced by a Release and Quitclaim executed by Pililla Mayor Nicomedes Patenia. The trial court then denied the municipality’s motion, finding the judgment satisfied. Atty. Mendiola filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming the payment was insufficient and that he had registered liens for consultancy and attorney’s fees. The trial court denied this motion. Atty. Mendiola subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court in the name of the municipality, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. PPC moved to question Atty. Mendiola’s authority to represent the municipality. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling it was filed by a private counsel in violation of law, without prejudice to the filing of a proper petition by the municipality through its legal officer. The municipality’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was filed by a private counsel without authority to represent the Municipality of Pililla.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err. The representation of a municipality by a private attorney is governed by Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code, complemented by the Local Autonomy Act. The law mandates that only the provincial fiscal (or provincial/city prosecutor) and the municipal attorney can represent a municipality in lawsuits. A municipality may employ a private attorney only when the provincial fiscal is disqualified, and such disqualification must appear on record. In this case, there was no record of the provincial fiscal’s disqualification. Therefore, Atty. Mendiola had no authority to file the petition on behalf of the municipality. The issue of his lack of authority can be questioned at any stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, even if initially authorized, such authority was deemed revoked when the municipal mayor, without the counsel’s participation, executed a Release and Quitclaim and filed a Satisfaction of Judgment, acts which constitute the client’s right to dismiss its lawyer and to compromise a suit. The petition was devoid of merit.