G.R. No. 137785 ; September 4, 2000
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ROMONAFE CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The National Power Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint for expropriation of lands owned by Vine Development Corporation and Romonafe Corporation. The Regional Trial Court fixed just compensation at P3,500 per square meter. NPC, through its in-house lawyers, filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, NPC’s lawyers and Romonafe entered into a Compromise Agreement. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that NPC lawyers lacked authority to appear before the Court of Appeals, citing Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal based on this procedural defect.

ISSUE

Whether NPC’s in-house lawyers had the authority to file the notice of appeal and enter into the Compromise Agreement before the Court of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. It distinguished between the authority to file a notice of appeal and the authority to compromise. The Court held that while NPC lawyers, as deputized special attorneys, are generally not authorized to handle cases in the appellate courts, the act of filing a notice of appeal from the RTC is a purely ministerial act that does not involve the exercise of discretion. This act is considered a “matter of ordinary judicial procedure” under Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which attorneys can perform without special authority. Therefore, the notice of appeal was validly filed, and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on that ground. However, the Compromise Agreement was declared invalid. Compromising a client’s litigation requires “special authority” under the same Rule, which the NPC lawyers did not possess. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution on the merits.