GR 209794; (June, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209794, June 27, 2016
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES JOSE AMAGAN, doing business under the trade name and style “A & J Seafoods and Marine Products,” and John Doe, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), through its Legal Services Group, filed a Complaint for Replevin against respondents. Respondents filed Motions to Dismiss, arguing the complaint was not filed or initiated by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and that the LBP Legal Services Group lacked authority to initiate the complaint. LBP informed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that the OGCC had issued Letters of Authority as early as June 5, 2009, authorizing and delegating its powers to specified lawyers of the LBP Legal Services Group to appear as counsel for LBP. The OGCC later filed a Manifestation and Confirmation of Authority dated August 28, 2012, signed by Government Corporate Counsel Raoul C. Creencia, confirming this delegation. Despite this, the RTC issued an Order dismissing the Complaint for Replevin, stating it was not filed by the proper party as mandated by law. LBP’s Motion for Reconsideration, signed by the OGCC, was denied by the RTC, which held that the OGCC’s subsequent participation could not cure the defect of the complaint not being initiated by the OGCC. Hence, LBP filed the instant petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) is the principal law office of Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs).
2. Whether the OGCC had validly consented to, or authorized, the participation of the LBP Legal Services Group in prosecuting the Complaint for Replevin.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the RTC orders, and ordered the reinstatement of the civil case.
1. Yes. The OGCC is the principal law office of all GOCCs, their subsidiaries, and other corporate offsprings, as explicitly designated under Section 10, Chapter 3, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. The OGCC exercises control and supervision over all legal departments or divisions of these corporations.
2. Yes. The OGCC had validly consented to and authorized the participation of the LBP Legal Services Group. The Court, citing precedents such as Land Bank of the Philippines v. Teresita Panlilio-Luciano and Land Bank of the Philippines v. AMS Farming Corporation, held that while the OGCC is the principal law office, the legal department of a GOCC like LBP is not precluded from participating as counsel provided the OGCC consents to such participation and the legal department acts under the OGCC’s control and supervision. In this case, the OGCC issued Letters of Authority delegating its powers to specific LBP lawyers and later confirmed this authority through a Manifestation signed by the Government Corporate Counsel. This constituted valid consent and authorization. The RTC erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was not initiated by the OGCC, as the OGCC’s delegation and subsequent confirmation satisfied the legal requirement.