GR 99425; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 99425 March 3, 1997
ANTONIO C. RAMOS, ROSALINDA M. PEREZ, NORMA C. CASTILLO and BALIUAG MARKET VENDORS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CAMILO O. MONTESA, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 19, and MUNICIPALITY OF BALIUAG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a case to nullify municipal ordinances and a lease contract involving the Municipality of Baliuag. The Provincial Fiscal and Provincial Attorney filed an Answer for the municipality. Subsequently, Atty. Roberto Romanillos appeared, manifesting he was counsel for the municipality, and actively handled the case by filing motions and submitting a formal offer of evidence. Petitioners later questioned his authority to represent the municipality, filing a motion to disqualify him and to nullify all proceedings he participated in. In response, Atty. Romanillos and Provincial Attorney Oliviano Regalado filed a joint motion stating Romanillos was withdrawing and Regalado was adopting all prior proceedings. The trial court denied petitioners’ motion, ruling the issue was moot due to the withdrawal and that petitioners, by initially acquiescing, were estopped from questioning his appearance.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) Who has the legal authority to represent a municipality in lawsuits? (2) What is the effect of participation by an unauthorized lawyer? (3) Must a motion to withdraw such counsel’s appearance comply with Rule 15 on notice and hearing?
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that only the provincial or city prosecutor, or the municipal attorney acting under the prosecutor’s control and supervision, can represent a municipality in court. A private lawyer requires explicit authority from the municipal council or the Secretary of Justice to do so. Atty. Romanillos had no such authority; his appearance was therefore unauthorized and void. Consequently, all actions he undertook, including the formal offer of evidence, were null and void. The subsequent adoption of these proceedings by the Provincial Attorney could not cure this nullity, as one cannot ratify a void act. The Court also clarified that a motion for withdrawal of counsel is not a litigated motion requiring notice and hearing under Rule 15, as it does not seek affirmative relief from the court or adversary. The trial court’s orders were reversed and set aside, and the proceedings participated in by Atty. Romanillos were declared null and void.