G.R. No. L-22501 July 31, 1967
MARIANO CALLEJA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MUNICIPALITY OF IRIGA, JOSE VILLANUEVA and MARCIANO TINO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mariano Calleja, a civil service eligible employee of the Municipality of Iriga, was among nineteen employees separated from service when their positions were abolished by the municipal council for lack of funds. Believing the removal was without just cause, Calleja, on behalf of himself and the other dismissed employees, filed an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the Municipality of Iriga, its Municipal Council members, and the Municipal Treasurer, seeking reinstatement and payment of back salaries. During the trial, the respondent municipality and its officials were represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur, collaborated by Atty. Silvestre Felix, the Municipal Attorney of Iriga. The lower court rendered a decision ordering reinstatement and payment of back salaries. A copy was received by the Provincial Fiscal on March 8, 1963, who did not file a notice of appeal. However, on March 23, 1963, the last day for perfecting an appeal, Municipal Attorney Silvestre Felix, on behalf of the respondents, filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond, with the respondent officials signing the notice with the statement “With our authority and consent.” Calleja objected to the approval of the appeal, arguing that the notice of appeal was not signed by the Provincial Fiscal, whom he claimed was the only official authorized to represent the municipality and its officers. The trial court overruled the objection and gave due course to the appeal. The case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Calleja filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals on the same grounds, which was denied. Calleja then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Silvestre Felix, in his capacity as Municipal Attorney for the Municipality of Iriga, has the authority under the law to sign the notice of appeal in the case without the accompanying signature or conformity of the Provincial Fiscal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Municipal Attorney of a municipality, duly appointed in accordance with Republic Act No. 2264 (the Local Autonomy Act), is the legal officer of the municipality and may appear in court as counsel for the municipality or any municipal officer sued in an official capacity. The Court held that the provisions of Sections 1681 and 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code, which designate the Provincial Fiscal as the legal representative of municipalities, have been modified by Section 3, paragraph 3(a) of Republic Act No. 2264. This law empowers municipal councils to create the office of Municipal Attorney, who shall act as legal counsel of the municipality. Harmonizing these provisions, the Court concluded that both officials can act as legal officer or counsel for the municipality, and the enactment of Republic Act No. 2264 was intended to increase local autonomy. Therefore, Municipal Attorney Silvestre Felix had the authority to sign the notice of appeal alone, and the appeal was properly perfected. The Court of Appeals correctly denied Calleja’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The petition was dismissed, with costs against Calleja.