Private Counsel for LGU

It can happen that a government official, ostensibly acting in his official capacity and sued in that capacity, is later held to have exceeded his authority.  On the one hand, his defense would have then been underwritten by the people’s money which ordinarily should have been his personal expense.  On the other hand, personal liability can attach to him without, however, his having had the benefit of assistance of a counsel of his own choice.  In Correa v. CFI, the Court held that in the discharge of governmental functions, ‘municipal corporations are responsible for the acts of its officers, except if and when, and only to the extent that, they have acted by authority of the law, and in conformity with the requirements thereof.

In such instance, this Court has sanctioned the representation by private counsel.  In one case, We held that where rigid adherence to the law on representation of local officials in court actions could deprive a party of his right to redress for a valid grievance, the hiring of a private counsel would be proper.  And in Albuera v. Torres, this Court also said that a provincial governor sued in his official capacity may engage the services of private counsel when “the complaint contains other allegations and a prayer for moral damages, which, if due from the defendants, must be satisfied by them in their private capacity (Alinsug v. RTC Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, G.R. No. 108232, August 23, 1993).

Late Appellant's Brief

Ergo, where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the strict application of the rules of procedure may be relaxed, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. Thus, a rigid application of the rules of procedure will not be entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration.

In the instant case, it is apparent that there is a strong desire to file an appellant’s brief on petitioner’s part. When petitioner filed its motion attaching therewith its appellant’s brief, there was a clear intention on the part of petitioner not to abandon his appeal. As a matter of fact, were it not for its counsel’s act of inadvertently misplacing the Notice to File Brief in another file,  petitioner could have seasonably filed its appellant’s brief as its counsel had already prepared the same even way before the receipt of the Notice to File Brief.

Also, it must be stressed that petitioner had no participatory negligence in the dismissal of its appeal. Hence, the ensuing dismissal of its appeal was completely attributable to the gross negligence of its counsel. For said reason, the Court is not averse to suspending its own rules in the pursuit of justice. Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence (CMTC International Marketing Corporation Vs. Bhagis International Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 170488. December 10, 2012).

Liability of Directors

Settled is the rule that debts incurred by directors, officers, and employees acting as corporate agents are not their direct liability but of the corporation they represent, except if  they contractually agree/stipulate or assume to be personally liable for the corporation’s debts, as in this case (Ildefonso S. Crisologo Vs. People of the Philippines and China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 199481. December 3, 2012).

Review by SC of Factual Findings

The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court. Nevertheless, there are exceptional cases where we, in the exercise of our discretionary appellate jurisdiction, may  be urged to look into factual issues raised in a Rule 45 petition. For instance, when the petitioner persuasively alleges that there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo (Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., et al. Vs. Salvadors T. Serna, G.R. No. 172086. December 3, 2012).

Pari Delicto

The case under consideration comes within the exception above adverted to.  Here [De Los Santos] desires to nullify a transaction which was done in violation of the law. Ordinarily the principle of pari delicto would apply to her because her predecessor-in-interest has carried out the sale with the presumed knowledge of its illegality, but  because the subject of the transaction is a  piece of public land, public policy requires that she, as heir, be not prevented from re-acquiring it because it was given by law to her family for her home and cultivation. This is the policy  on which our homestead law is predicated.  This right cannot be waived. “It is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve”. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that [De Los Santos] can maintain the present action it  being in furtherance of this fundamental aim of our homestead law [De los Santos v. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, 94 Phil. 405 (1954)].

Appeal of Criminal Case by Offended Party

The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. This ruling has been repeatedly stressed in several cases and continues to be the controlling doctrine. 

While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf (as when there is a denial of due process), this exceptional circumstance does not apply in the present case (Dante LA. Jimenez, etc. Vs. Hon. Edwin Sorongon, etc., et al., G.R. No. 178607. December 5, 2012).

Custody of the Law for Adjudication of Reliefs

As  a  rule,  one  who  seeks  an  affirmative  relief  is  deemed  to  have submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  Filing pleadings seeking affirmative  relief  constitutes  voluntary  appearance,  and  the  consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the jurisdiction of the court.

Thus,  by  filing several motions before the RTC seeking the  dismissal of  the  criminal  case,  respondent  Alamil  voluntarily  submitted  to  the jurisdiction  of  the  RTC.  Custody of the law  is  not  required  for  the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail (Dante LA. Jimenez, etc. Vs. Hon. Edwin Sorongon, etc., et al., G.R. No. 178607. December 5, 2012).