GR 118605; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118605 ; April 12, 2000
EDGARDO MANCENIDO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Edgardo Mancenido and other teachers filed an action for mandamus and damages against the Provincial Board and other provincial officials of Camarines Norte to claim unpaid salary increases. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision in favor of the teachers. The provincial officials, through a private lawyer, Atty. Jose Lapak, filed a Notice of Appeal. The teachers opposed this appeal and moved for partial execution of the judgment, which the RTC granted. The provincial officials then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted their petition, ordered the elevation of the records for appeal, and enjoined the partial execution.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the provincial officials could be validly represented by a private counsel in filing the Notice of Appeal; and (2) whether the Notice of Appeal was fatally defective for being served upon the petitioners themselves instead of their counsel of record.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the teachers’ petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. On the first issue, the Court held that while the general rule mandates representation by the Solicitor General or the Provincial Prosecutor for local government units in official suits, the circumstances justified the representation by private counsel. The provincial officials had initially been represented by the Provincial Prosecutor, who later withdrew. Faced with the impending lapse of the appeal period and the absence of a government lawyer, the hiring of a private lawyer was a practical and necessary step to protect the government’s interest and perfect the appeal, preventing a miscarriage of justice. This exceptional situation excused strict adherence to the rule.
On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that under the Rules of Court, service of notices must be made upon the counsel of record, not the client. However, this procedural lapse was not fatal under the specific circumstances. The teachers’ counsel received the Notice of Appeal shortly after the petitioners themselves, and more importantly, the teachers themselves filed their own Notice of Appeal and actively participated in opposing the provincial officials’ appeal. Their actions constituted a waiver of any defect in the mode of service, as they were clearly not deprived of notice nor prejudiced. The appeal was thus perfected on time, depriving the RTC of jurisdiction and making its order for partial execution pending appeal improper, especially as the CA correctly found the order lacked the requisite “good reasons” to justify such execution.