Case: #309. Municipality of Pililla v.

CA (1994)
Topic: The Municipality, §§ 443, 481
Ponente: Justice Regalado

Facts: In relation to the execution of SC judgment on the business tax liaibilities of the Philippine
Petroleum Corporation (PPC) to the Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, Atty. Felix Mendiola filed with the RTC a
motion on behalf of the municipality for the reexamination of the corporation’s gross sales for the
proper computation of the business tax to be imposed. Atty. Mendiola’s also sought to execute the liens
registered by his law firm over the judgment for alleged consultancy services and attorney's fees owed
by the municipality. The PPC questioned Atty. Mendiola’s authority to represent the municipality. The
SC held that Atty. Mendiola had no authority to file a petition on behalf and in the name of the
municipality.

Doctrine: The matter of representation of a municipality by a private attorney has been settled and
reiterated by case law, where the SC ruled that private attorneys cannot represent a province or
municipality in lawsuits. The legality of the private counsel’s representation can be questioned at any
stage of the proceedings.

Together, the old Revised Administrative Code (Act 2711) and the Local Autonomy Law (RA 2264)
provide that only the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a province or
municipality in their lawsuits. The municipality's authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly
limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it.

With the old Revised Administrative Code as basis, Enriquez, Sr. v. Gimenez (1960) enumerated the
instances when the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent in court a particular municipality:
 When original jurisdiction of case involving the municipality is vested in the Supreme Court;
 When the municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or to some other
municipality in the same province; and
 When, in a case involving the municipality, the provincial fiscal, his wife, or child, is pecuniarily
involved as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise.

For the exception to apply, the fact that the provincial fiscal was disqualified to handle the municipality's
case must appear on record.

The fiscal's refusal to represent the municipality is not a legal justification for employing the services of
private counsel. Unlike a practising lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal cannot
refuse to perform his functions on grounds not provided for by law without violating his oath of office.
Instead of engaging the services of a special (private) attorney, the municipal council should request the
Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of the provincial fiscal who has declined
to handle and prosecute its case in court, pursuant to the old Revised Administrative Code.