View full case

CONSTANTINO T. GUMARU v. QUIRINO STATE COLLEGE

FACTS:

C.T. Gumaru Construction filed a complaint for damages against Quirino State College and its president, Julian A. Alvarez, seeking to recover expected profits, escalation costs of construction materials, value of a demolished bodega, and damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss based on improper venue was denied, and they were declared in default for failing to answer. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and issued a writ of execution. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appeared as counsel for the defendants and moved to quash the writ of execution, citing lack of legal representation and the non-issuance of writs of execution against government funds and properties. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals (CA) quashed the writ of execution in its ruling on the OSG's petition for certiorari. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Supreme Court is now considering the issues relating to the proper legal representation of the state college, the requirement to file the money claim with the Commission on Audit, the applicability of rules and procedures under Presidential Decree No. 1445, the liability of the state college as a government agency, the need for further appropriation for the enforcement of the money judgment, and the propriety of the state college's representation by its own counsel during the proceedings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondent state college was properly represented before the trial court

  2. If in the negative, whether the lack of proper legal representation was enough to nullify the proceedings

  3. Whether the properties of respondent state college may be seized under the writ of execution issued by the trial court

  4. Whether or not the petition should be denied.

  5. Whether or not the nullification of the proceedings before the trial court and the writ of execution should be justified.

  6. Whether or not a new trial should be conducted.

RULING:

  1. The proper statutory counsel of respondent state college is the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Legal representation by a private lawyer was improper.

  2. The lack of proper legal representation does not, by itself, nullify the proceedings. However, the fee of the lawyer who rendered legal service to the government without the prior written conformity of the OSG is the personal liability of the government official who hired his services.

  3. The properties of respondent state college may be seized under the writ of execution issued by the trial court.

  4. The petition is denied.

  5. The nullification of the proceedings before the trial court and the writ of execution is justified.

  6. A new trial should be conducted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is mandated to act as the law office of the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, officials and agents in any litigation or proceeding requiring the services of a lawyer.

  • The OSG's mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings is compulsory and the term "shall" is considered mandatory in statutory construction.

  • The Solicitor General cannot refuse to represent the government without a just and valid reason and refusal to perform the duty is compellable through a writ of mandamus.

  • Government agencies should not reject the services of the OSG and actions filed in the name of the Republic that are not initiated by the OSG will be summarily dismissed.

  • The fee of a lawyer who rendered legal service to the government without the prior written conformity of the OSG or the OGCC (Office of the Government Corporate Counsel) is the personal liability of the government official who hired his services.

  • The Solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the government.

  • The Solicitor General is expected to promote and protect the public welfare and not just the narrow interests of a particular client office or official.

  • The state cannot be bound by the mistakes or negligent acts of its officials or agents.

  • The legality of legal representation can be questioned at any stage of the proceedings.