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).