GR 191691; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191691; January 16, 2013
Romeo A. Gontang, in his official capacity as Mayor of Gainza, Camarines Sur, Petitioner, vs. Engr. Cecilia Alayan, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Cecilia Alayan was appointed Municipal Assessor. After the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office approved her change to permanent status in 2001, she sought recognition and back wages from petitioner Mayor Romeo Gontang. Her requests were denied, prompting her to file a petition for mandamus with damages against the Mayor in his official capacity. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals (CA) later ruled in her favor, a decision which became final. However, the CSC subsequently set aside her permanent appointment. Alayan then moved for the execution of a monetary award for unpaid salaries covering the period of her appeal on the CSC ruling. The RTC granted her motion for an alias writ of execution.
Petitioner, through his privately retained counsel, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to challenge the RTC’s orders. The CA dismissed this petition not on its merits, but on the procedural ground that a private attorney lacked the legal authority to represent the Municipality of Gainza. The CA held that the municipal government should have been represented by the Provincial Prosecutor or the Office of the Solicitor General.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of unauthorized representation by private counsel.
RULING
Yes, the CA erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the CA’s resolutions. The core legal principle is that a local government official sued in an official capacity may be validly represented by private counsel when the complaint includes a claim for damages that could result in personal liability. The original mandamus case filed by Alayan specifically included prayers for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against the petitioner.
The Court, citing precedent such as Alinsug v. RTC, reasoned that when a government official is sued in an official capacity but the action includes claims for personal monetary liability, the official has a right to secure private legal representation. This is because any award for such damages would be satisfied from the official’s personal funds, not public coffers. Therefore, the defense against these personal claims is not an official governmental function requiring representation by a public prosecutor. Consequently, the private attorneys retained by Mayor Gontang from the inception of the litigation had continuing authority to represent him, including in filing the petition for certiorari before the CA. The case was remanded to the CA for proceedings on the substantive merits of the certiorari petition.