7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

G.R. No. 191691. January 16, 2013.*

ROMEO A. GONTANG, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF GAINZA,
CAMARINES SUR, petitioner, vs. ENGR.
CECILIA ALAYAN, respondent.

Attorneys; Right to Counsel; In instances where

personal liability on the part of local government
officials is sought, they may properly secure the
services of private counsel.—The damages sought
therein could have resulted in personal liability,
hence, petitioner cannot be deemed to have been
improperly represented by private counsel. In Alinsug
v. RTC Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental,
225 SCRA 553 (1993), the Court ruled that in
instances like the present case where personal
liability on the part of local government

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gontang vs. Alayan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

officials is sought, they may properly secure the

services of private counsel, explaining: 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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the

resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
  Office of the Provincial Legal Officer for
petitioner.
  Epifanio Ma. J. Terbio, Jr. for respondent.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a petition filed under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the
May 26, 20091 and

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 25-26. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M.
Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.

661

VOL. 688, JANUARY 16, 2013 661

Gontang vs. Alayan

March 22, 20102 Resolutions of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107366 which
dismissed the case due to the lack of legal
authority of the private attorneys to represent
the Municipality of Gainza, Camarines Sur.

The Facts

Respondent Engr. Cecilia Alayan

(respondent) was appointed in 2000 as
Municipal Government Department Head
(Municipal Assessor) on temporary status. In
May 2001, she applied for change of status from
temporary to permanent, which the Civil Service
Commission-Camarines Sur Field Office (CSC-
CSFO) denied for lack of relevant experience. On
appeal, the CSC-Regional Office in its August
13, 2001 Order approved her application
effective May 22, 2001. Thus, she reported for
work and sought recognition of her appointment
and the grant of the emoluments of the position

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

from petitioner, then incumbent Mayor Romeo

A. Gontang (petitioner). Her requests having
been denied, she filed before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Naga City on February 5, 2002 a
petition for mandamus, docketed as Special Civil
Action No. 2002-0019, against petitioner, in his
official capacity as Municipal Mayor of Gainza,
Camarines Sur. However, the RTC dismissed
the petition for having been prematurely filed as
the Order of the CSC-Regional Office had not
attained finality due to the pendency of the
appeal before the CSC. Respondent appealed to
the CA which, in its June 20, 2003 decision,3
ruled in her favor holding that the pendency of
an appeal is not a justification to prevent her
from assuming office. Said decision attained
finality on August 10, 20074 with the denial of

_______________
2 Id., at pp. 39-40. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M.
Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and
Florito S. Macalino, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 103-112. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 75048.
4 Records, p. 197.

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Gontang vs. Alayan

petitioner’s petition before the Supreme Court.5

However, prior to the CA decision, the CSC set
aside the August 13, 2001 Order of the CSC-
Regional Office on May 8, 20036 upon a finding
that there was no permanent appointment as
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

the concurrence of the local Sanggunian was not

obtained. Respondent’s appeal of the CSC
decision was denied by the CA7 and such denial
became final on October 6, 2006.8
On March 17, 2008, respondent moved for the
issuance of an alias writ of execution by the RTC
in Special Civil Action No. 2002-0019 for the
alleged unsatisfied judgment award in the
amount of P837,022.50 representing her unpaid
salaries and allowances from May 8, 2003 to
October 6, 2006 during the pendency of her
appeal of the CSC Resolutions.9 Petitioner
opposed the motion claiming full satisfaction of
the judgment after having already paid
respondent the net sum of P391,040.6010
covering all benefits for the period from the date
the CSC-CSFO approved her request for change
of status on August 13, 2001 to May 7, 2003, the
day before the CSC denied her application for
permanent appointment.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Finding that the May 8, 2003 CSC Resolution

became final and executory only on October 6,
2006 after respondent’s appeal was resolved by
the CA and with no appeal having been taken
therefrom, the RTC ordered the issuance of an
alias writ of execution in the order dated October
22, 2008.11 It

_______________
5  Rollo, pp. 131-132.
6  Records, pp. 524-532.
7  Rollo, pp. 124-129. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90782.
8  Records, p. 310.
9  Rollo, pp. 133-136.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

10 Id., at pp. 69-70, 52-53. In addition to attorney’s fees of

P10,000.00.
11 Id., at pp. 69-72. Penned by Judge Maria Eden Huenda
Altea.

663

VOL. 688, JANUARY 16, 2013 663

Gontang vs. Alayan

also subsequently denied petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration.12
Dissatisfied, petitioner, through Attorneys
Joselito I. Fandiño (Atty. Fandiño)and Voltaire
V. Saulon (Atty. Saulon), the counsels he had
retained since the initial stage of the litigation,
filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul
and set aside the two (2) Orders of the RTC.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA dismissed the petition on the ground

of lack of legal authority on the part of Atty.
Saulon, a private attorney, to represent the
Municipality of Gainza, Camarines Sur.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied in the assailed March 22, 2010
Resolution.

Issue Before the Court

Hence, the instant petition raising the issue

of whether the CA erred in dismissing the
petition for certiorari on the ground of
unauthorized representation of petitioner by
private lawyers.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

The present case stemmed from Special Civil
Action No. 2002-0019 for mandamus and
damages.13 The damages sought

_______________
12 Id., at p. 73.
13  Id., at p. 98. The petition for mandamus, inter alia
seeks “that respondent be held personally liable for the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) by way
of moral damages suffered by the petitioner; Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000) by way of exemplary damages; Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000) as and for attorney’s fees; One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000) per appearance; plus costs

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Gontang vs. Alayan

therein could have resulted in personal liability,

hence, petitioner cannot be deemed to have been
improperly represented by private counsel.14 In
Alinsug v. RTC Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental,15 the Court ruled that in instances
like the present case where personal liability on
the part of local government officials is sought,
they may properly secure the services of private
counsel, explaining:

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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

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.16
(Citations omitted)

_______________
of the suit amounting to not less than Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000) all in favor of the petitioner.”
14 Mancenido v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118605, April
12, 2000, 330 SCRA 419, 426.
15 G.R. No. 108232, August 23, 1993, 225 SCRA 553.
16 Id., at p. 559.

665

VOL. 688, JANUARY 16, 2013 665

Gontang vs. Alayan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

Consequently Attys. Fandiño and Saulon had

the authority to represent petitioner at the
initial stages of the litigation and this authority
continued even up to his appeal17 and the filing
of the petition for certiorari with the CA
respecting the execution of the RTC judgment.18
It was therefore an error for the CA to have
dismissed the said petition for certiorari on the
ground of unauthorized representation.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
The assailed May 26, 2009 and March 22, 2010
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 107366 are hereby SET ASIDE. The
case is REMANDED to the CA for further
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez

and Leonen,** JJ., concur.

_______________
17 Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 22, provides:
Sec. 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed
to represent client on appeal.—An attorney who appears de
parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to
continue representing his client on appeal, unless he files a
formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the appellate
court.
18 Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 23, provides:
Sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients.—Attor-
neys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any
agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking
appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure.
x x x
See also Province of Bulacan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
126232, November 27, 1998, 299 SCRA 442, 453-454, where
the Court stated that “[s]uch questions as what action or
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

pleading to file, where and when to file it, what are its
formal requirements, what should be the theory of the case,
what defenses to raise, how may the claim or defense be
proved, when to rest the case, as well as those affecting the
competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy,
materiality or immateriality of certain evidence and the
burden of proof are within the authority of the attorney to
decide.”
**  Designated Additional Member per Special Order No.
1408 dated January 15, 2013.

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Gontang vs. Alayan

Petition granted, resolutions set aside. Case

remanded to Court of Appeals for further
proceedings.

Notes.—The right to counsel and the

assistance of one in investigations involving
termination cases is neither indispensable nor
mandatory, except when the employee himself
requests for one or that he manifests that he
wants a formal hearing on the charges against
him. (Lopez vs. Alturas Group of Companies, 647
SCRA 568 [2011])
The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen
at the precise moment custodial investigation
begins and being made to stand in a police line-
up is not the starting point or a part of custodial
investigation. (People vs. Lara, 678 SCRA 332
[2012])
——o0o——

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
7/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 688

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bb1726f8a98c6c7ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11