View full case

MUNICIPALITY OF PILILLA v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between the Municipality of Pililla, Rizal (petitioner) and the Philippine Petroleum Corporation (private respondent) regarding tax liabilities. The Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner, ordering the private respondent to pay various taxes and fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment with modifications, which became final and executory. The records were remanded to the trial court for execution.

In connection with the execution of the judgment, Atty. Felix E. Mendiola filed a motion on behalf of the petitioner for the examination of the private respondent's gross sales for the purpose of computing the tax on business. The private respondent claimed that it had already paid the judgment amount in full to the petitioner. The trial court denied the motion for examination, ruling that the judgment had already been satisfied.

Atty. Mendiola filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that there was still a balance owed by the private respondent to the petitioner. The trial court denied the motion. Atty. Mendiola then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on behalf of the petitioner. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, stating that it was filed by a private counsel in violation of the law and jurisprudence. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner now seeks the nullification of the Court of Appeals' resolutions before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Felix E. Mendiola had the authority to represent petitioner Municipality of Pililla, Rizal.

  2. Whether the petition filed by Atty. Mendiola is null and void for being filed by a private counsel.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Atty. Mendiola on behalf of the petitioner Municipality of Pililla, Rizal. The Court of Appeals ruled that Atty. Mendiola had no authority to represent the municipality as he was a private counsel. The court held that under the law and jurisprudence, only the proper provincial or municipal legal officer can file a petition for certiorari on behalf of the municipality. The dismissal of the petition by the Court of Appeals was without prejudice to the filing of a similar petition by the municipality through its proper legal officer.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Only the proper provincial or municipal legal officer can file a petition for certiorari on behalf of a municipality.

  • A petition filed by a private counsel on behalf of a municipality is null and void.

  • The dismissal of a petition filed by a private counsel on behalf of a municipality is without prejudice to the filing of a similar petition by the municipality through its proper legal officer.