Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDGARDO MANCENIDO FOR HIMSELF v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 191691 2013-01-16	ROMEO A. GONTANG v. ENGR. CECILIA ALAYAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The present case stemmed from Special Civil Action No. 2002-0019 for mandamus and damages.[13] The damages sought 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 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.
	GR No. 162525 2008-09-23	ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS v. CITY OF URDANETA QUISUMBING, J.
The Lazaro Law Firm, as the city's counsel, counters that the city was inutile defending its cause before the RTC for lack of needed legal advice. The city has no legal officer and both City Prosecutor and Provincial Legal Officer are busy. Practical considerations also dictate that the city and Mayor Perez must have the same counsel since he faces related criminal cases. Citing Mancenido v. Court of Appeals,[27] the law firm states that hiring private counsel is proper where rigid adherence to the law on representation would deprive a party of his right to redress a valid grievance.[28]
	GR No. 162525 2008-09-23	ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS v. CITY OF URDANETA QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, the appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm as counsel for Urdaneta City is against the law. Section 481(b)(3)(i) of the LGC provides when a special legal officer may be employed, that is, in actions or proceedings where a component city or municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government. But this case is not between Urdaneta City and the Province of Pangasinan. And we have consistently held that a local government unit cannot be represented by private counsel[37] as only public officers may act for and in behalf of public entities and public funds should not be spent to hire private lawyers.[38] Pro bono representation in collaboration with the municipal attorney and prosecutor has not even been allowed[39]
	GR NO. 163655 2006-06-16	INOCENCIO ALIMBOBOYOG v. CA TINGA, J.
This was a flawed procedural step in view of the requirement under Sec. 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court[7] and pertinent jurisprudence that service of notice when a party is represented by counsel should be made upon counsel and not upon the party.[8] However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that Alimboboyog had not previously brought this matter to the attention of the Court of Appeals prior to filing the instant petition.