MAYOR OF PILILLA V. HON. CA.

FACTS:

The RTC Tanay, rendered judgment in a Civil case requiring the Philippine Petroleum Corporation to
pay a business tax amounting (5,301,385.00) covering period from 1979 to 1983; 2) storage permit fee
covering period year 1975 to 1986; 3) Mayor’s permit fee covering period from 1975 to 1984; 4)
sanitary inspection from 1975 to 1984 and costs of suit.
The CA affirmed the said decision with modification that business taxes accruing prior to 1976 are not
to be paid by the Petroleum Company because the same have prescribed, and the storage fees are not
also to be paid by them because the storage tanks are owned by the petroleum company, and not by the
municipality. This became Final & executory.
In connection of the court’s decision, Atty. Felix Mendiola in behalf of Municipality of Pililla filed a
motion before the RTC for the examination of Petroleum Corporation’s gross sales for the years 1976
to 1978 & 1984 to 1991 for purposes of computing tax on business under Local Tax Code.
The defendant petroleum corporation filed a manifestation that in 1991 Pililla Mayor received the sum
of P11,457,907 as full satisfaction of the said judgment of the Supreme Court as evidence by the
release & quitclaim documents executed by the said mayor.
RTC deny the plaintiff’s motion for examination on the ground that the judgment in question had
already been satisfied.
Therefore, Atty. Mendiola filed MR of the aforesaid order claiming that the total liability of Petroleum
corporation amounted to 24,176,599 while the amount involved in the release and quitclaim was only
12,718,692 and the said mayor could not waive the balance which represents the taxes.
RTC denied the MR.
Atty. Mendiola filed a petition for certiorari before the CA .
On the otherhand, Petroleum corporation filed a motion questioning Atty. Felix Mendiola’s authority to
represent petitioner municipality.
CA dismissed the petition of Atty. Mendiola for having filed it by a private counsel.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Felix Mendiola has authority to represent and file an action in court in
behalf of the municipality of pililla.
HELD: No, Atty. Felix Mendiola has no authority to represent and file and action in court in behalf of
Mun. of Pililla. Because Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Section 1683.Duty of fiscal to represent provinces and provincial subdivisions in litigation. - The
provincial fiscal shall represent the province and any municipality or municipal district thereof in any
court, except in cases whereof original jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court or in cases where the
municipality or municipal district in question is a party adverse to the provincial government or to
some other municipality or municipal district in the same province. When the interests of a provincial
government and of any political division thereof are opposed, the provincial fiscal shall act on behalf of
the province.chanroblesvirtualawlibra

Only the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a province or municipality in their
lawsuits. The provision is mandatory.

The municipality's authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only to situations where
the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it. For the aforementioned exception to apply, the fact
that the provincial fiscal was disqualified to handle the municipality's case must appear on
record.

In the instant case, there is nothing in the records to show that the provincial fiscal is disqualified to act
as counsel for the Municipality of Pililla on appeal, hence the appearance of herein private counsel is
without authority of law.
 ONG V. DELOS SANTOS
Facts:
In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent Atty. William F. Delos
Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. After several calls and
personal interactions between them, Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became friends.
In time, according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated check inasmuch as he
was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos
Santos bragged about his lucrative practice and his good paying clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos
Santos’ financial stability, Ong handed to Atty. Delos Santos on January 29, 2008 the amount of
P100,000.00 in exchange for the latter’s Metrobank Check No. 0110268 postdated February 29, 2008.
 However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was closed. Ong
relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded immediate payment, but the
latter just ignored him. When efforts to collect remained futile, Ong brought a criminal complaint for
estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. Ong also brought this
disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which
docketed the complaint as CBD Case No. 11-2985.

Issue:
 By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his good moral
character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his
admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his
membership in the Philippine Bar. The Court unwaveringly demands of him to remain a competent,
honorable, and reliable individual in whom the public may repose confidence. Any gross misconduct
that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly
involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates
is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of
putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute the
channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society
and the public interest. 

lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if
such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.

That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter. His being a lawyer invested him –
whether he was acting as such or in a non-professional capacity – with the obligation to exhibit good
faith, fairness and candor in his relationship with others. There is no question that a lawyer could be
disciplined not only for a malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside
of his professional capacity. His being a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as a person of the
highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings with others.