CITY O !ANILA, "#$%$%on#r, &'. GENARO N. TEOTICO an( CO)RT O A**EAL+, r#'"on(#n$'. C%$y %',a- !anu#- T. R#y#' .or "#$%$%on#r. +#&%--a, /a0a an( A''o,%a$#' .or r#'"on(#n$'. CONCEPCION, C.J.: Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals. On January 2, !"#$, at about $:%% p.m., &enaro N. 'eotico (as at the corner of the Old )uneta and P. *ur+os A,enue, -anila, (ithin a .loadin+ and unloadin+. /one, (aitin+ for a 0eepney to ta1e him do(n to(n. After (aitin+ for about fi,e minutes, he mana+ed to hail a 0eepney that came alon+ to a stop. As he stepped do(n from the curb to board the 0eepney, and too1 a fe( steps, he fell inside an unco,ered and unli+hted catch basin or manhole on P. *ur+os A,enue. 2ue to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole brea1in+ his eye+lasses and causin+ bro1en pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. As blood flo(ed therefrom, impairin+ his ,ision, se,eral persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them brou+ht 'eotico to the Philippine &eneral 3ospital, (here his in0uries (ere treated, after (hich he (as ta1en home. In addition to the lacerated (ound in his left upper eyelid, 'eotico suffered contusions on the left thi+h, the left upper arm, the ri+ht le+ and the upper lip apart from an abrasion on the ri+ht infra4patella re+ion. 'hese in0uries and the aller+ic eruption caused by anti4tetanus in0ections administered to him in the hospital, re5uired further medical treatment by a pri,ate practitioner (ho char+ed therefor P!,6%%.%%. As a conse5uence of the fore+oin+ occurrence, 'eotico filed, (ith the Court of 7irst Instance of -anila, a complaint 8 (hich (as, subse5uently, amended 8 for dama+es a+ainst the City of -anila, its mayor, city en+ineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police. As stated in the decision of the trial court, and 5uoted (ith appro,al by the Court of Appeals, At the time of the incident, plaintiff (as a practicin+ public accountant, a businessman and a professor at the 9ni,ersity of the East. 3e held responsible positions in ,arious business firms li1e the Philippine -erchandisin+ Co., the A.9. :alencia and Co., the ;il,er ;(an -anufacturin+ Company and the ;incere Pac1in+ Corporation. 3e (as also associated (ith se,eral ci,ic or+ani/ations such as the <ac1 <ac1 &olf Club, the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, =>s -en Club of -anila and the ?ni+hts of @i/al. As a result of the incident, plaintiff (as pre,ented from en+a+in+ in his customary occupation for t(enty days. Plaintiff has lost a daily income of about P#%.%% durin+ his incapacity to (or1. *ecause of the incident, he (as sub0ected to humiliation and ridicule by his business associates and friends. 2urin+ the period of his treatment, plaintiff (as under constant fear and anAiety for the (elfare of his minor children since he (as their only support. 2ue to the filin+ of this case, plaintiff has obli+ated himself to pay his counsel the sum of P2,%%%.%%. On the other hand, the defense presented e,idence, oral and documentary, to pro,e that the ;torm 2rain ;ection, Office of the City En+ineer of -anila, recei,ed a report of the unco,ered condition of a catchbasin at the corner of P. *ur+os and Old )uneta ;treets, -anila, on January 26, !"#$, but the same (as co,ered on the same day BEAhibit 6CD that a+ain the iron co,er of the same catch basin (as reported missin+ on January E%, !"#$, but the said co,er (as replaced the neAt day BEAhibit #CD that the Office of the City En+ineer ne,er recei,ed any report to the effect that the catch basin in 5uestion (as not co,ered bet(een January 2# and 2", !"F$D that it has al(ays been a policy of the said office, (hich is char+ed (ith the duty of installation, repair and care of storm drains in the City of -anila, that (hene,er a report is recei,ed from (hate,er source of the loss of a catchbasin co,er, the matter is immediately attended to, either by immediately replacin+ the missin+ co,er or co,erin+ the catchbasin (ith steel mattin+ that because of the lucrati,e scrap iron business then pre,ailin+, stealin+ of iron catchbasin co,ers (as rampantD that the Office of the City En+ineer has filed complaints in court resultin+ from theft of said iron co,ersD that in order to pre,ent such thefts, the city +o,ernment has chan+ed the position and layout of catchbasins in the City by constructin+ them under the side(al1s (ith concrete cement co,ers and openin+s on the side of the +utterD and that these chan+es had been underta1en by the city from time to time (hene,er funds (ere a,ailable. After appropriate proceedin+s the Court of 7irst Instance of -anila rendered the aforementioned decision sustainin+ the theory of the defendants and dismissin+ the amended complaint, (ithout costs. On appeal ta1en by plaintiff, this decision (as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, eAcept insofar as the City of -anila is concerned, (hich (as sentenced to pay dama+es in the a++re+ate sum of PF,#%.%%. ! 3ence, this appeal by the City of -anila. 'he first issue raised by the latter is (hether the present case is +o,erned by ;ection 6 of @epublic Act No. 6%" BCharter of the City of -anilaC readin+: 'he city shall not be liable or held for dama+es or in0uries to persons or property arisin+ from the failure of the -ayor, the -unicipal *oard, or any other city officer, to enforce the pro,isions of this chapter, or any other la( or ordinance, or from ne+li+ence of said -ayor, -unicipal *oard, or other officers (hile enforcin+ or attemptin+ to enforce said pro,isions. or by Article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code of the Philippines (hich pro,ides: Pro,inces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama+es for the death of, or in0uries suffered by, any person by reason of defecti,e conditions of road, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s, and other public (or1s under their control or super,ision. -anila maintains that the former pro,ision should pre,ail o,er the latter, because @epublic Act 6%", is a special la(, intended eAclusi,ely for the City of -anila, (hereas the Ci,il Code is a +eneral la(, applicable to the entire Philippines. 'he Court of Appeals, ho(e,er, applied the Ci,il Code, and, (e thin1, correctly. It is true that, insofar as its territorial application is concerned, @epublic Act No. 6%" is a special la( and the Ci,il Code a +eneral le+islationD but, as re+ards the sub0ect4matter of the pro,isions abo,e 5uoted, ;ection 6 of @epublic Act 6%" establishes a +eneral rule re+ulatin+ the liability of the City of -anila for: .dama+es or in0ury to persons or property arisin+ from the failure of. city officers .to enforce the pro,isions of. said Act .or any other la( or ordinance, or from ne+li+ence. of the city .-ayor, -unicipal *oard, or other officers (hile enforcin+ or attemptin+ to enforce said pro,isions.. 9pon the other hand, Article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code constitutes a particular prescription ma1in+ .pro,inces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for dama+es for the death of, or in0ury suffered by any person by reason. 8 specifically 8 .of the defecti,e condition of roads, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s, and other4public (or1s under their control or super,ision.. In other (ords, said section 6 refers to liability arisin+ from ne+li+ence, in +eneral, re+ardless of the ob0ect thereof, (hereas Article 2!$" +o,erns liability due to .defecti,e streets,. in particular. ;ince the present action is based upon the alle+ed defecti,e condition of a road, said Article 2!$" is decisi,e thereon. It is ur+ed that the City of -anila cannot be held liable to 'eotico for dama+es: !C because the accident in,ol,in+ him too1 place in a national hi+h(ayD and 2C because the City of -anila has not been ne+li+ent in connection there(ith. As re+ards the first issue, (e note that it is based upon an alle+ation of fact not made in the ans(er of the City. -oreo,er, 'eotico alle+ed in his complaint, as (ell as in his amended complaint, that his in0uries (ere due to the defecti,e condition of a street (hich is .under the super,ision and control. of the City. In its ans(er to the amended complaint, the City, in turn, alle+ed that .the streets aforementioned (ere and ha,e been constantly 1ept in +ood condition and re+ularly inspected and the storm drains and manholes thereof co,ered by the defendant City and the officers concerned. (ho .ha,e been e,er ,i+ilant and /ealous in the performance of their respecti,e functions and duties as imposed upon them by la(.. 'hus, the City had, in effect, admitted that P. *ur+os A,enue (as and is under its control and super,ision. -oreo,er, the assertion to the effect that said A,enue is a national hi+h(ay (as made, for the first time, in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals. ;uch assertion raised, therefore, a 5uestion of fact, (hich had not been put in issue in the trial court, and cannot be set up, for the first time, on appeal, much less after the rendition of the decision of the appellate court, in a motion for the reconsideration thereof. At any rate, under Article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the defecti,e roads or streets belon+ to the pro,ince, city or municipality from (hich responsibility is eAacted. <hat said article re5uires is that the pro,ince, city or municipality ha,e either .control or super,ision. o,er said street or road. E,en if P. *ur+os A,enue (ere, therefore, a national hi+h(ay, this circumstance (ould not necessarily detract from its .control or super,ision. by the City of -anila, under @epublic Act 6%". In fact ;ection !$BAC thereof pro,ides: ;ec. !$. )e+islati,e po(ers. 8 'he -unicipal *oard shall ha,e the follo(in+ le+islati,e po(ers: A A A A A A A A A BAC ;ub0ect to the pro,isions of eAistin+ la( to pro,ide for the layin+ out, construction and impro,ement, and to re+ulate the use of streets, a,enues, alleys, side(al1s, (har,es, piers, par1s, cemeteries, and other public placesD to pro,ide for li+htin+, cleanin+, and sprin1lin+ of streets and public placesD . . . to pro,ide for the inspection of, fiA the license fees for and re+ulate the openin+s in the same for the layin+ of +as, (ater, se(er and other pipes, the buildin+ and repair of tunnels, se(ers, and drains, and all structures in and under the same and the erectin+ of poles and the strin+in+ of (ires thereinD to pro,ide for and re+ulate cross4(or1s, curbs, and +utters therein, . . . to re+ulate traffic and sales upon the streets and other public placesD to pro,ide for the abatement of nuisances in the same and punish the authors or o(ners thereofD to pro,ide for the construction and maintenance, and re+ulate the use, of brid+es, ,iaducts and cul,ertsD to prohibit and re+ulate ball playin+, 1ite4flyin+, hoop rollin+, and other amusements (hich may annoy persons usin+ the streets and public places, or fri+hten horses or other animalsD to re+ulate the speed of horses and other animals, motor and other ,ehicles, cars, and locomoti,es (ithin the limits of the cityD to re+ulate the li+hts used on all ,ehicles, cars, and locomoti,esD . . . to pro,ide for and chan+e the location, +rade, and crossin+ of railroads, and compel any such railroad to raise or lo(er its trac1s to conform to such pro,isions or chan+esD and to re5uire railroad companies to fence their property, or any part thereof, to pro,ide suitable protection a+ainst in0ury to persons or property, and to construct and repair ditches, drains, se(ers, and cul,erts alon+ and under their trac1s, so that the natural draina+e of the streets and ad0acent property shall not be obstructed. 'his authority has been neither (ithdra(n nor restricted by @epublic Act No. "! and EAecuti,e Order No. !!E, dated -ay 2, !"##, upon (hich the City relies. ;aid Act +o,erns the disposition or appropriation of the hi+h(ay funds and the +i,in+ of aid to pro,inces, chartered cities and municipalities in the construction of roads and streets (ithin their respecti,e boundaries, and EAecuti,e Order No. !!E merely implements the pro,isions of said @epublic Act No. "!, concernin+ the disposition and appropriation of the hi+h(ay funds. -oreo,er, it pro,ides that .the construction, maintenance and impro,ement of national primary, national secondary and national aid pro,incial and city roads shall be accomplished by the 3i+h(ay 2istrict En+ineers and 3i+h(ay City En+ineers under the super,ision of the Commissioner of Public 3i+h(ays and shall be financed from such appropriations as may be authori/ed by the @epublic of the Philippines in annual or special appropriation Acts.. 'hen, a+ain, the determination of (hether or not P. *ur+os A,enue is under the control or super,ision of the City of -anila and (hether the latter is +uilty of ne+li+ence, in connection (ith the maintenance of said road, (hich (ere decided by the Court of Appeals in the affirmati,e, is one of fact, and the findin+s of said Court thereon are not sub0ect to our re,ie(. <3E@E7O@E, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby affirmed, (ith costs a+ainst the City of -anila. It is so ordered. @eyes, J.*.)., 2i/on, -a1alintal, *en+/on, J.P., Galdi,ar, ;anche/, Castro, An+eles and 7ernando, JJ., concur. G.R. No. 11029 !ay 29, 1981 BERNAR/INO JI!ENE3, "#$%$%on#r, &'. CITY O !ANILA an( INTER!E/IATE A**ELLATE CO)RT, r#'"on(#n$'.
PA@A;, J.: 'his is a petition for re,ie( on certiorari of: B!C the decision H of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC4&.@. No. %!E$$4C: *ernardino Jimene/ ,. Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation and City of -anila, re,ersin+ the decision HH of the Court of 7irst Instance of -anila, *ranch IIII in Ci,il Case No. "FE"% bet(een the same parties, but only insofar as holdin+ Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation solely liable for dama+es and attorney>s fees instead of ma1in+ the City of -anila 0ointly and solidarily liable (ith it as prayed for by the petitioner and B2C the resolution of the same Appellate Court denyin+ his Partial -otion for @econsideration B@ollo, p. 2C. 'he dispositi,e portion of the Intermediate Appellate Court>s decision is as follo(s: <3E@E7O@E, the decision appealed from is hereby @E:E@;E2. A ne( one is hereby entered orderin+ the defendant Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation to pay the plaintiff P22!."% actual medical eApenses, P"%%.%% for the amount paid for the operation and mana+ement of a school bus, P2%,%%%.%% as moral dama+es due to pains, sufferin+s and sleepless ni+hts and P l%,%%%.%% as attorney>s fees. ;O O@2E@E2. Bp. 2%, @olloC 'he findin+s of respondent Appellate Court are as follo(s: 'he e,idence of the plaintiff Bpetitioner hereinC sho(s that in the mornin+ of Au+ust !#, !"6 he, to+ether (ith his nei+hbors, (ent to ;ta. Ana public mar1et to buy .ba+oon+. at the time (hen the public mar1et (as flooded (ith an1le deep rain(ater. After purchasin+ the .ba+oon+. he turned around to return home but he stepped on an unco,ered openin+ (hich could not be seen because of the dirty rain(ater, causin+ a dirty and rusty four4 inch nail, stuc1 inside the unco,ered openin+, to pierce the left le+ of plaintiff4petitioner penetratin+ to a depth of about one and a half inches. After administerin+ first aid treatment at a nearby dru+store, his companions helped him hobble home. 3e felt ill and de,eloped fe,er and he had to be carried to 2r. Juanita -ascardo. 2espite the medicine administered to him by the latter, his left le+ s(elled (ith +reat pain. 3e (as then rushed to the :eterans -emorial 3ospital (here he had to be confined for t(enty B2%C days due to hi+h fe,er and se,ere pain. 9pon his dischar+e from the hospital, he had to (al1 around (ith crutches for fifteen B!#C days. 3is in0ury pre,ented him from attendin+ to the school buses he is operatin+. As a result, he had to en+a+e the ser,ices of one *ien,enido :alde/ to super,ise his business for an a++re+ate compensation of nine hundred pesos BP"%%.%%C. B2ecision, AC4&.@. C: No. %!E$, @ollo, pp. !E42%C. Petitioner sued for dama+es the City of -anila and the Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation under (hose administration the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et had been placed by ,irtue of a -ana+ement and Operatin+ Contract B@ollo, p. 6C. 'he lo(er court decided in fa,or of respondents, the dispositi,e portion of the decision readin+: <3E@E7O@E, 0ud+ment is hereby rendered in fa,or of the defendants and a+ainst the plaintiff dismissin+ the complaint (ith costs a+ainst the plaintiff. 7or lac1 of sufficient e,idence, the counterclaims of the defendants are li1e(ise dismissed. B2ecision, Ci,il Case No. "FE"%, @ollo, p. 62C. As abo,e stated, on appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court held the Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation liable for dama+es but absol,ed respondent City of -anila. 3ence this petition. 'he lone assi+nment of error raised in this petition is on (hether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in not rulin+ that respondent City of -anila should be 0ointly and se,erally liable (ith Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation for the in0uries petitioner suffered. In compliance (ith the resolution of July !, !"$# of the 7irst 2i,ision of this Court B@ollo, p. 2"C respondent City of -anila filed its comment on Au+ust !E, !"$# B@ollo, p. E6C (hile petitioner filed its reply on Au+ust 2!, !"$# B@eno, p. #!C. 'hereafter, the Court in the resolution of ;eptember !!, !"$# B@ollo, p. F2C +a,e due course to the petition and re5uired both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda Petitioner filed his memorandum on October !, !"$# B@ollo, p. F#C (hile respondent filed its memorandum on October 26, !"$# B@ollo, p. $2C. In the resolution of October !E, !"$F, this case (as transferred to the ;econd 2i,ision of this Court, the same ha,in+ been assi+ned to a member of said 2i,ision B@ollo, p. "2C. 'he petition is impressed (ith merit. As correctly found by the Intermediate Appellate Court, there is no doubt that the plaintiff suffered in0uries (hen he fell into a draina+e openin+ (ithout any co,er in the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et. 2efendants do not deny that plaintiff (as in fact in0ured althou+h the Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation tries to minimi/e the eAtent of the in0uries, claimin+ that it (as only a small puncture and that as a (ar ,eteran, plaintiff>s hospitali/ation at the <ar :eteran>s 3ospital (as free. B2ecision, AC4&.@. C: No. %!E$, @ollo, p. FC. @espondent City of -anila maintains that it cannot be held liable for the in0uries sustained by the petitioner because under the -ana+ement and Operatin+ Contract, Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation assumed all responsibility for dama+es (hich may be suffered by third persons for any cause attributable to it. It has also been ar+ued that the City of -anila cannot be held liable under Article !, ;ection 6 of @epublic Act No. 6%" as amended B@e,ised Charter of -anilaC (hich pro,ides: 'he City shall not be liable or held for dama+es or in0uries to persons or property arisin+ from the failure of the -ayor, the -unicipal *oard, or any other City Officer, to enforce the pro,isions of this chapter, or any other la( or ordinance, or from ne+li+ence of said -ayor, -unicipal *oard, or any other officers (hile enforcin+ or attemptin+ to enforce said pro,isions. 'his issue has been laid to rest in the case of City of -anila ,. 'eotico B22 ;C@A 2F"4 22 J!"F$KC (here the ;upreme Court s5uarely ruled that @epublic Act No. 6%" establishes a +eneral rule re+ulatin+ the liability of the City of -anila for .dama+es or in0ury to persons or property arisin+ from the failure of city officers. to enforce the pro,isions of said Act, .or any other la( or ordinance or from ne+li+ence. of the City .-ayor, -unicipal *oard, or other officers (hile enforcin+ or attemptin+ to enforce said pro,isions.. 9pon the other hand, Article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code of the Philippines (hich pro,ides that: Pro,inces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama+es for the death of, or in0uries suffered by any person by reason of defecti,e conditions of roads, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s and other public (or1s under their control or super,ision. constitutes a particular prescription ma1in+ .pro,inces, cities and municipalities ... liable for dama+es for the death of, or in0ury suffered by any person by reason. 8 specifically 8 .of the defecti,e condition of roads, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s, and other public (or1s under their control or super,ision.. In other (ords, Art. !, sec. 6, @.A. No. 6%" refers to liability arisin+ from ne+li+ence, in +eneral, re+ardless of the ob0ect, thereof, (hile Article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code +o,erns liability due to .defecti,e streets, public buildin+s and other public (or1s. in particular and is therefore decisi,e on this specific case. In the same suit, the ;upreme Court clarified further that under Article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach, that the defecti,e public (or1s belon+ to the pro,ince, city or municipality from (hich responsibility is eAacted. <hat said article re5uires is that the pro,ince, city or municipality has either .control or super,ision. o,er the public buildin+ in 5uestion. In the case at bar, there is no 5uestion that the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et, despite the -ana+ement and Operatin+ Contract bet(een respondent City and Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation remained under the control of the former. 7or one thin+, said contract is eAplicit in this re+ard, (hen it pro,ides: II 'hat immediately after the eAecution of this contract, the ;ECON2 PA@'= shall start the paintin+, cleanin+, saniti/in+ and repair of the public mar1ets and talipapas and (ithin ninety B"%C days thereof, the ;ECON2 PA@'= shall submit a pro+ram of impro,ement, de,elopment, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the city public mar1ets and talipapas sub0ect to prior appro,al of the 7I@;' PA@'=. B@ollo, p. 66C AAA AAA AAA :I 'hat all present personnel of the City public mar1ets and talipapas shall be retained by the ;ECON2 PA@'= as lon+ as their ser,ices remain satisfactory and they shall be eAtended the same ri+hts and pri,ile+es as heretofore en0oyed by them. Pro,ided, ho(e,er, that the ;ECON2 PA@'= shall ha,e the ri+ht, sub0ect to prior appro,al of the 7I@;' PA@'= to dischar+e any of the present employees for cause. B@ollo, p. 6#C. :II 'hat the ;ECON2 PA@'= may from time to time be re5uired by the 7I@;' PA@'=, or his duly authori/ed representati,e or representati,es, to report, on the acti,ities and operation of the City public mar1ets and talipapas and the facilities and con,eniences installed therein, particularly as to their cost of construction, operation and maintenance in connection (ith the stipulations contained in this Contract. BlbidC 'he fact of super,ision and control of the City o,er sub0ect public mar1et (as admitted by -ayor @amon *a+atsin+ in his letter to ;ecretary of 7inance Cesar :irata (hich reads: 'hese cases arose from the contro,ersy o,er the -ana+ement and Operatin+ Contract entered into on 2ecember 2$, !"2 by and bet(een the City of -anila and the Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation, (hereby in consideration of a fiAed ser,ice fee, the City hired the ser,ices of the said corporation to underta1e the physical mana+ement, maintenance, rehabilitation and de,elopment of the City>s public mar1ets and> 'alipapas> sub0ect to the control and super,ision of the City. AAA AAA AAA It is belie,ed that there is nothin+ incon+ruous in the eAercise of these po(ers ,is4a4,is the eAistence of the contract, inasmuch as the City retains the po(er of super,ision and control o,er its public mar1ets and talipapas under the terms of the contract. BEAhibit .4 A.C BEmphasis supplied.C B@ollo, p. #C. In fact, the City of -anila employed a mar1et master for the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et (hose primary duty is to ta1e direct super,ision and control of that particular mar1et, more specifically, to chec1 the safety of the place for the public. 'hus the Asst. Chief of the -ar1et 2i,ision and 2eputy -ar1et Administrator of the City of -anila testified as follo(s: Court 'his mar1et master is an employee of the City of -anilaL -r. =mson =es, =our 3onor. M <hat are his functionsL A 2irect super,ision and control o,er the mar1et area assi+ned to him..B'.s.n.,pp. 6!462, 3earin+ of -ay 2%, !".C AAA AAA AAA Court As far as you 1no( there is or is there any specific employee assi+ned (ith the tas1 of seein+ to it that the ;ta. Ana -ar1et is safe for the publicL -r. =mson Actually, as I stated, =our 3onor, that the ;ta. Ana has its o(n mar1et master. 'he primary duty of that mar1et master is to ma1e the direct super,ision and control of that particular mar1et, the chec1 or ,erifyin+ (hether the place is safe for public safety is ,ested in the mar1et master. B'.s.n., pp. 262#, 3earin+ of July 2, !".C BEmphasis supplied.C B@ollo, p. FC. 7inally, ;ection E% B+C of the )ocal 'aA Code as amended, pro,ides: 'he treasurer shall eAercise direct and immediate super,ision administration and control o,er public mar1ets and the personnel thereof, includin+ those (hose duties concern the maintenance and up1eep of the mar1et and ordinances and other pertinent rules and re+ulations. BEmphasis supplied.C B@ollo, p. FC 'he contention of respondent City of -anila that petitioner should not ha,e ,entured to +o to ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et durin+ a stormy (eather is indeed untenable. As obser,ed by respondent Court of Appeals, it is an error for the trial court to attribute the ne+li+ence to herein petitioner. -ore specifically stated, the findin+s of appellate court are as follo(s: ... 'he trial court e,en chastised the plaintiff for +oin+ to mar1et on a rainy day 0ust to buy ba+oon+. A customer in a store has the ri+ht to assume that the o(ner (ill comply (ith his duty to 1eep the premises safe for customers. If he ,entures to the store on the basis of such assumption and is in0ured because the o(ner did not comply (ith his duty, no ne+li+ence can be imputed to the customer. B2ecision, AC4&. @. C: No. %!E$, @ollo, p. !"C. As a defense a+ainst liability on the basis of a 5uasi4delict, one must ha,e eAercised the dili+ence of a +ood father of a family. BArt. !!E of the Ci,il CodeC. 'here is no ar+ument that it is the duty of the City of -anila to eAercise reasonable care to 1eep the public mar1et reasonably safe for people fre5uentin+ the place for their mar1etin+ needs. <hile it may be conceded that the fulfillment of such duties is eAtremely difficult durin+ storms and floods, it must ho(e,er, be admitted that ordinary precautions could ha,e been ta1en durin+ +ood (eather to minimi/e the dan+ers to life and limb under those difficult circumstances. 7or instance, the draina+e hole could ha,e been placed under the stalls instead of on the passa+e (ays. E,en more important is the fact, that the City should ha,e seen to it that the openin+s (ere co,ered. ;adly, the e,idence indicates that lon+ before petitioner fell into the openin+, it (as already unco,ered, and fi,e B#C months after the incident happened, the openin+ (as still unco,ered. B@ollo, pp. #D #"C. -oreo,er, (hile there are findin+s that durin+ floods the ,endors remo,e the iron +rills to hasten the flo( of (ater B2ecision, AC4&.@. C: No. % !E$D @ollo, p. !C, there is no sho(in+ that such practice has e,er been prohibited, much less penali/ed by the City of -anila. Neither (as it sho(n that any si+n had been placed thereabouts to (arn passersby of the impendin+ dan+er. 'o recapitulate, it appears e,ident that the City of -anila is li1e(ise liable for dama+es under Article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code, respondent City ha,in+ retained control and super,ision o,er the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et and as tort4feasor under Article 2!F of the Ci,il Code on 5uasi4delicts Petitioner had the ri+ht to assume that there (ere no openin+s in the middle of the passa+e(ays and if any, that they (ere ade5uately co,ered. 3ad the openin+ been co,ered, petitioner could not ha,e fallen into it. 'hus the ne+li+ence of the City of -anila is the proAimate cause of the in0ury suffered, the City is therefore liable for the in0ury suffered by the peti4 6 petitioner. @espondent City of -anila and Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation bein+ 0oint tort4feasors are solidarily liable under Article 2!"6 of the Ci,il Code. P@E-I;E; CON;I2E@E2, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby -O2I7IE2, ma1in+ the City of -anila and the Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation solidarily liable to pay the plaintiff P22!."% actual medical eApenses, P"%%.%% for the amount paid for the operation and mana+ement of the school bus, P2%,%%%.%% as moral dama+es due to pain, sufferin+s and sleepless ni+hts and P!%,%%%.%% as attorney>s fees. ;O O@2E@E2. 7ernan BChairmanC, &utierre/, Jr., Padilla, *idin and Cortes JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 61516 !ar,4 21, 1989 LORENTINA A. G)ILATCO, "#$%$%on#r, &'. CITY O /AG)*AN, an( $4# 5ONORABLE CO)RT O A**EAL+, r#'"on(#n$'.
;A@-IEN'O, J.: In a ci,il action ! for reco,ery of dama+es filed by the petitioner 7lorentina A. &uilatco, the follo(in+ 0ud+ment (as rendered a+ainst the respondent City of 2a+upan: A A A B!C Orderin+ defendant City of 2a+upan to pay plaintiff actual dama+es in the amount of P !#,"26 Bnamely P$,%#6.%% as hospital, medical and other eApenses JEAhs. 3 to 34F%K, P ,62%.%% as lost income for one B!C year JEAh. 7K and P 6#%.%% as bonusC. P !#%,%%%.%% as moral dama+es, P #%,%%%.%% as eAemplary dama+es, and P E,%%%.%% as attorney>s fees, and liti+ation eApenses, plus costs and to appropriate throu+h its ;an++unian+ Pan+lunsod BCity CouncilC said amounts for said purposeD B2C 2ismissin+ plaintiffs complaint as a+ainst defendant City En+r. Alfredo &. 'an+coD and BEC 2ismissin+ the counterclaims of defendant City of 2a+upan and defendant City En+r. Alfredo &. 'an+co, for lac1 of merit. 2 'he facts found by the trial court are as follo(s: It (ould appear from the e,idences that on July 2#, !"$, herein plaintiff, a Court Interpreter of *ranch III, C7I442a+upan City, (hile she (as about to board a motori/ed tricycle at a side(al1 located at Pere/ *l,d. Ba National @oad, under the control and super,ision of the City of 2a+upanC accidentally fell into a manhole located on said side(al1, thereby causin+ her ri+ht le+ to be fractured. As a result thereof, she had to be hospitali/ed, operated on, confined, at first at the Pan+asinan Pro,incial 3ospital, from July 2# to Au+ust E, !"$ Bor for a period of !F daysC. ;he also incurred hospitali/ation, medication and other eApenses to the tune of P $,%#E.F# BEAh. 3 to 34F%C or a total of P !%,%%%.%% in all, as other receipts (ere either lost or misplacedD durin+ the period of her confinement in said t(o hospitals, plaintiff suffered se,ere or eAcruciatin+ pain not only on her ri+ht le+ (hich (as fractured but also on all parts of her bodyD the pain has persisted e,en after her dischar+e from the -edical City &eneral 3ospital on October ", !"$, to the present. 2espite her dischar+e from the 3ospital plaintiff is presently still (earin+ crutches and the Court has actually obser,ed that she has difficulty in locomotion. 7rom the time of the mishap on July 2#, !"$ up to the present, plaintiff has not yet reported for duty as court interpreter, as she has difficulty of locomotion in +oin+ up the stairs of her office, located near the city hall in 2a+upan City. ;he earns at least P 2%.%% a month consistin+ of her monthly salary and other means of income, but since July 2#, !"$ up to the present she has been depri,ed of said income as she has already consumed her accrued lea,es in the +o,ernment ser,ice. ;he has lost se,eral pounds as a result of the accident and she is no lon+er her former 0o,ial self, she has been unable to perform her reli+ious, social, and other acti,ities (hich she used to do prior to the incident. 2r. Norberto 7eliA and 2r. 2ominado -an/ano of the Pro,incial 3ospital, as (ell as 2r. Antonio ;ison of the -edical City &eneral 3ospital in -andaluyon+ @i/al BEAh. ID see also EAhs. 7, &, &4! to &4!"C ha,e confirmed beyond shado( of any doubt the eAtent of the fracture and in0uries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the mishap. On the other hand, Patrolman Cla,eria, 2e Asis and Cere/o corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff re+ardin+ the mishap and they ha,e confirmed the eAistence of the manhole BEAhs. A, *, C and sub4eAhibitsC on the side(al1 alon+ Pere/ *l,d., at the time of the incident on July 2#, !"$ (hich (as partially co,ered by a concrete flo(er pot by lea,in+ +apin+ hole about 2 ft. lon+ by ! !N2 feet (ide or 62 cms. (ide by # cms. lon+ by !#% cms. deep Bsee EAhs. 2 and 24!C. 2efendant Alfredo 'an+co, City En+ineer of 2a+upan City and admittedly eA4officio 3i+h(ay En+ineer, City En+ineer of the Public <or1s and *uildin+ Official for 2a+upan City, admitted the eAistence of said manhole alon+ the side(al1 in Pere/ *l,d., admittedly a National @oad in front of the )u/on Colle+es. 3e also admitted that said manhole Bthere are at least !! in all in Pere/ *l,d.C is o(ned by the National &o,ernment and the side(al1 on (hich they are found alon+ Pere/ *l,d. are also o(ned by the National &o,ernment. *ut as City En+ineer of 2a+upan City, he super,ises the maintenance of said manholes or draina+e system and sees to it that they are properly co,ered, and the 0ob is specifically done by his subordinates, -r. ;antia+o de :era B-aintenance 7oremanC and En+r. Ernesto ;olermo also a maintenance En+ineer. In his ans(er defendant 'an+co eApressly admitted in par. 4! thereof, that in his capacity as eA4 officio 3i+h(ay En+ineer for 2a+upan City he eAercises super,ision and control o,er National roads, includin+ the Pere/ *l,d. (here the incident happened. On appeal by the respondent City of 2a+upan, the appellate court re,ersed the lo(er court findin+s on the +round that no e,idence (as presented by the plaintiff4 appellee to pro,e that the City of 2a+upan had .control or super,ision. o,er Pere/ *oule,ard. 'he city contends that Pere/ *oule,ard, (here the fatal draina+e hole is located, is a national road that is not under the control or super,ision of the City of 2a+upan. 3ence, no liability should attach to the city. It submits that it is actually the -inistry of Public 3i+h(ays that has control or super,ision throu+h the 3i+h(ay En+ineer (hich, by mere coincidence, is held concurrently by the same person (ho is also the City En+ineer of 2a+upan. After eAamination of the findin+s and conclusions of the trial court and those of the appellate court, as (ell as the ar+uments presented by the parties, (e a+ree (ith those of the trial court and of the petitioner. 3ence, (e +rant the petition. In this re,ie( on certiorari, (e ha,e simplified the errors assi+ned by the petitioner to a sin+le issue: (hether or not control or super,ision o,er a national road by the City of 2a+upan eAists, in effect bindin+ the city to ans(er for dama+es in accordance (ith article 2!$" of the Ci,il Code. 'he liability of public corporations for dama+es arisin+ from in0uries suffered by pedestrians from the defecti,e condition of roads is eApressed in the Ci,il Code as follo(s: Article 2!$". Pro,inces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama+es for the death of, or in0uries suffered by, any person by reason of the defecti,e condition of roads, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s, and other public (or1s under their control or super,ision. It is not e,en necessary for the defecti,e road or street to belon+ to the pro,ince, city or municipality for liability to attach. 'he article only re5uires that either control or super,ision is eAercised o,er the defecti,e road or street. F In the case at bar, this control or super,ision is pro,ided for in the charter of 2a+upan and is eAercised throu+h the City En+ineer (ho has the follo(in+ duties: ;ec. 22. 'he City En+ineer443is po(ers, duties and compensation4'here shall be a city en+ineer, (ho shall be in char+e of the department of En+ineerin+ and Public <or1s. 3e shall recei,e a salary of not eAceedin+ three thousand pesos per annum. 3e shall ha,e the follo(in+ duties: A A A B0C 3e shall ha,e the care and custody of the public system of (ater(or1s and se(ers, and all sources of (ater supply, and shall control, maintain and re+ulate the use of the same, in accordance (ith the ordinance relatin+ theretoD shall inspect and re+ulate the use of all pri,ate systems for supplyin+ (ater to the city and its inhabitants, and all pri,ate se(ers, and their connection (ith the public se(er system. A A A 'he same charter of 2a+upan also pro,ides that the layin+ out, construction and impro,ement of streets, a,enues and alleys and side(al1s, and re+ulation of the use thereof, may be le+islated by the -unicipal *oard . 'hus the charter clearly indicates that the city indeed has super,ision and control o,er the side(al1 (here the open draina+e hole is located. 'he eApress pro,ision in the charter holdin+ the city not liable for dama+es or in0uries sustained by persons or property due to the failure of any city officer to enforce the pro,isions of the charter, can not be used to eAempt the city, as in the case at bar.$ 'he charter only lays do(n +eneral rules re+ulatin+ the liability of the city. On the other hand article 2!$" applies in particular to the liability arisin+ from .defecti,e streets, public buildin+s and other public (or1s.. " 'he City En+ineer, -r. Alfredo &. 'an+co, admits that he eAercises control or super,ision o,er the said road. *ut the city can not be eAcused from liability by the ar+ument that the duty of the City En+ineer to super,ise or control the said pro,incial road belon+s more to his functions as an eA4officio 3i+h(ay En+ineer of the -inistry of Public 3i+h(ay than as a city officer. 'his is because (hile he is entitled to an honorarium from the -inistry of Public 3i+h(ays, his salary from the city +o,ernment substantially eAceeds the honorarium. <e do not a+ree. Alfredo &. 'an+co .BiCn his official capacity as City En+ineer of 2a+upan, as EA4 Officio 3i+h(ay En+ineer, as EA4Officio City En+ineer of the *ureau of Public <or1s, and, last but not the least, as *uildin+ Official for 2a+upan City, recei,es the follo(in+ monthly compensation: P !,$!%.FF from 2a+upan CityD P 2%%.%% from the -inistry of Public 3i+h(aysD P !%%.%% from the *ureau of Public <or1s and P #%%.%% by ,irtue of P.2. !%"F, respecti,ely.. !% 'his function of super,ision o,er streets, public buildin+s, and other public (or1s pertainin+ to the City En+ineer is coursed throu+h a -aintenance 7oreman and a -aintenance En+ineer. Althou+h these last t(o officials are employees of the National &o,ernment, they are detailed (ith the City of 2a+upan and hence recei,e instruction and super,ision from the city throu+h the City En+ineer. 'here is, therefore, no doubt that the City En+ineer eAercises control or super,ision o,er the public (or1s in 5uestion. 3ence, the liability of the city to the petitioner under article 2!"$ of the Ci,il Code is clear. *e all that as it may, the actual dama+es a(arded to the petitioner in the amount of P !%,%%%.%% should be reduced to the pro,en eApenses of P $,%#E.F# only. 'he trial court should not ha,e rounded off the amount. In determinin+ actual dama+es, the court can not rely on .speculation, con0ecture or +uess (or1. as to the amount. <ithout the actual proof of loss, the a(ard of actual dama+es becomes erroneous. On the other hand, moral dama+es may be a(arded e,en (ithout proof of pecuniary loss, inasmuch as the determination of the amount is discretionary on the court.!E 'hou+h incapable of pecuniary estimation, moral dama+es are in the nature of an a(ard to compensate the claimant for actual in0ury suffered but (hich for some reason can not be pro,en. 3o(e,er, in a(ardin+ moral dama+es, the follo(in+ should be ta1en into consideration: B!C 7irst, the proAimate cause of the in0ury must be the claimee>s acts.!6 B2C ;econd, there must be compensatory or actual dama+es as satisfactory proof of the factual basis for dama+es.!# BEC 'hird, the a(ard of moral dama+es must be predicated on any of the cases enumerated in the Ci,il Code. !F In the case at bar, the physical sufferin+ and mental an+uish suffered by the petitioner (ere pro,en. <itnesses from the petitioner>s place of (or1 testified to the de+eneration in her disposition4from bein+ 0o,ial to depressed. ;he refrained from attendin+ social and ci,ic acti,ities. Ne,ertheless the a(ard of moral dama+es at P !#%,%%%.%% is eAcessi,e. 3er handicap (as not permanent and disabled her only durin+ her treatment (hich lasted for one year. 'hou+h e,idence of moral loss and an+uish eAisted to (arrant the a(ard of dama+es,!$ the moderatin+ hand of the la( is called for. 'he Court has time and a+ain called attention to the reprehensible propensity of trial 0ud+es to a(ard dama+es (ithout basis,!" resultin+ in eAhorbitant amounts.2% Althou+h the assessment of the amount is better left to the discretion of the trial court 2! under precedin+ 0urisprudence, the amount of moral dama+es should be reduced to P 2%,%%%.%%. As for the a(ard of eAemplary dama+es, the trial court correctly pointed out the basis: 'o ser,e as an eAample for the public +ood, it is hi+h time that the Court, throu+h this case, should ser,e (arnin+ to the city or cities concerned to be more conscious of their duty and responsibility to their constituents, especially (hen they are en+a+ed in construction (or1 or (hen there are manholes on their side(al1s or streets (hich are unco,ered, to immediately co,er the same, in order to minimi/e or pre,ent accidents to the poor pedestrians.22 'oo often in the /eal to put up .public impact. pro0ects such as beautification dri,es, the end is more important than the manner in (hich the (or1 is carried out. *ecause of this obsession for sho(in+ off, such tri,ial details as misplaced flo(er pots betray the careless eAecution of the pro0ects, causin+ public incon,enience and in,itin+ accidents. Pendin+ appeal by the respondent City of 2a+upan from the trial court to the appellate court, the petitioner (as able to secure an order for +arnishment of the funds of the City deposited (ith the Philippine National *an1, from the then presidin+ 0ud+e, 3on. <illelmo 7ortun. 'his order for +arnishment (as re,o1ed subse5uently by the succeedin+ presidin+ 0ud+e, 3on. @omeo 2. -a+at, and became the basis for the petitioner>s motion for reconsideration (hich (as also denied. 2E <e rule that the eAecution of the 0ud+ment of the trial court pendin+ appeal (as premature. <e do not find any +ood reason to 0ustify the issuance of an order of eAecution e,en before the eApiration of the time to appeal .26 <3E@E7O@E, the petition is &@AN'E2. 'he assailed decision and resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals are hereby @E:E@;E2 and ;E' A;I2E and the decision of the trial court, dated -arch !2, !"" and amended on -arch !E, !"", is hereby @EIN;'A'E2 (ith the indicated modifications as re+ards the amounts a(arded: B!C Orderin+ the defendant City of 2a+upan to pay the plaintiff actual dama+es in the amount of P !#,"26 Bnamely P $,%#6.%% as hospital, medical and other eApensesD P ,62%.%% as lost income for one B!C year and P 6#%.%% as bonusCD P 2%,%%%.%% as moral dama+es and P !%,%%%.%% as eAemplary dama+es. 'he attorney>s fees of P E,%%%.%% remain the same. ;O O@2E@E2. -elencio43errera, BChaipersonC, Paras, Padilla and @e+alado, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-11152 !ar,4 21, 1916 E. !ERRITT, "-a%n$%..-a""#--an$, &'. GO6ERN!ENT O T5E *5ILI**INE I+LAN/+, (#.#n(an$-a""#--an$. '@EN', J.: 'his is an appeal by both parties from a 0ud+ment of the Court of 7irst Instance of the city of -anila in fa,or of the plaintiff for the sum of P!6,6!, to+ether (ith the costs of the cause. Counsel for the plaintiff insist that the trial court erred B!C .in limitin+ the +eneral dama+es (hich the plaintiff suffered to P#,%%%, instead of P2#,%%% as claimed in the complaint,. and B2C .in limitin+ the time (hen plaintiff (as entirely disabled to t(o months and t(enty4one days and fiAin+ the dama+e accordin+ly in the sum of P2,FFF, instead of PF,%%% as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint.. 'he Attorney4&eneral on behalf of the defendant ur+es that the trial court erred: BaC in findin+ that the collision bet(een the plaintiff>s motorcycle and the ambulance of the &eneral 3ospital (as due to the ne+li+ence of the chauffeurD BbC in holdin+ that the &o,ernment of the Philippine Islands is liable for the dama+es sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision, e,en if it be true that the collision (as due to the ne+li+ence of the chauffeurD and BcC in renderin+ 0ud+ment a+ainst the defendant for the sum of P!6,6!. 'he trial court>s findin+s of fact, (hich are fully supported by the record, are as follo(s: It is a fact not disputed by counsel for the defendant that (hen the plaintiff, ridin+ on a motorcycle, (as +oin+ to(ard the (estern part of Calle Padre 7aura, passin+ alon+ the (est side thereof at a speed of ten to t(el,e miles an hour, upon crossin+ 'aft A,enue and (hen he (as ten feet from the south(estern intersection of said streets, the &eneral 3ospital ambulance, upon reachin+ said a,enue, instead of turnin+ to(ard the south, after passin+ the center thereof, so that it (ould be on the left side of said a,enue, as is prescribed by the ordinance and the -otor :ehicle Act, turned suddenly and uneApectedly and lon+ before reachin+ the center of the street, into the ri+ht side of 'aft A,enue, (ithout ha,in+ sounded any (histle or horn, by (hich mo,ement it struc1 the plaintiff, (ho (as already siA feet from the south(estern point or from the post place there. *y reason of the resultin+ collision, the plaintiff (as so se,erely in0ured that, accordin+ to 2r. ;aleeby, (ho eAamined him on the ,ery same day that he (as ta1en to the &eneral 3ospital, he (as sufferin+ from a depression in the left parietal re+ion, a (ould in the same place and in the bac1 part of his head, (hile blood issued from his nose and he (as entirely unconscious. 'he mar1s re,ealed that he had one or more fractures of the s1ull and that the +rey matter and brain (as had suffered material in0ury. At ten o>cloc1 of the ni+ht in 5uestion, (hich (as the time set for performin+ the operation, his pulse (as so (ea1 and so irre+ular that, in his opinion, there (as little hope that he (ould li,e. 3is ri+ht le+ (as bro1en in such a (ay that the fracture eAtended to the outer s1in in such manner that it mi+ht be re+arded as double and the (ould be eAposed to infection, for (hich reason it (as of the most serious nature. At another eAamination siA days before the day of the trial, 2r. ;aleeby noticed that the plaintiff>s le+ sho(ed a contraction of an inch and a half and a cur,ature that made his le+ ,ery (ea1 and painful at the point of the fracture. EAamination of his head re,ealed a notable read0ustment of the functions of the brain and ner,es. 'he patient apparently (as sli+htly deaf, had a li+ht (ea1ness in his eyes and in his mental condition. 'his latter (ea1ness (as al(ays noticed (hen the plaintiff had to do any difficult mental labor, especially (hen he attempted to use his money for mathematical calculations. Accordin+ to the ,arious merchants (ho testified as (itnesses, the plaintiff>s mental and physical condition prior to the accident (as eAcellent, and that after ha,in+ recei,ed the in0uries that ha,e been discussed, his physical condition had under+one a noticeable depreciation, for he had lost the a+ility, ener+y, and ability that he had constantly displayed before the accident as one of the best constructors of (ooden buildin+s and he could not no( earn e,en a half of the income that he had secured for his (or1 because he had lost #% per cent of his efficiency. As a contractor, he could no lon+er, as he had before done, climb up ladders and scaffoldin+s to reach the hi+hest parts of the buildin+. As a conse5uence of the loss the plaintiff suffered in the efficiency of his (or1 as a contractor, he had to dissol,ed the partnership he had formed (ith the en+ineer. <ilson, because he (as incapacitated from ma1in+ mathematical calculations on account of the condition of his le+ and of his mental faculties, and he had to +i,e up a contract he had for the construction of the 9y Chaco buildin+.. <e may say at the outset that (e are in full accord (ith the trial court to the effect that the collision bet(een the plaintiff>s motorcycle and the ambulance of the &eneral 3ospital (as due solely to the ne+li+ence of the chauffeur. 'he t(o items (hich constitute a part of the P!6,6! and (hich are dra(n in 5uestion by the plaintiff are BaC P#,%%%, the a(ard a(arded for permanent in0uries, and BbC the P2,FFF, the amount allo(ed for the loss of (a+es durin+ the time the plaintiff (as incapacitated from pursuin+ his occupation. <e find nothin+ in the record (hich (ould 0ustify us in increasin+ the amount of the first. As to the second, the record sho(s, and the trial court so found, that the plaintiff>s ser,ices as a contractor (ere (orth P!,%%% per month. 'he court, ho(e,er, limited the time to t(o months and t(enty4one days, (hich the plaintiff (as actually confined in the hospital. In this (e thin1 there (as error, because it (as clearly established that the plaintiff (as (holly incapacitated for a period of siA months. 'he mere fact that he remained in the hospital only t(o months and t(enty4one days (hile the remainder of the siA months (as spent in his home, (ould not pre,ent reco,ery for the (hole time. <e, therefore, find that the amount of dama+es sustained by the plaintiff, (ithout any fault on his part, is P!$,%#. As the ne+li+ence (hich caused the collision is a tort committed by an a+ent or employee of the &o,ernment, the in5uiry at once arises (hether the &o,ernment is le+ally4liable for the dama+es resultin+ therefrom. Act No. 26#, effecti,e 7ebruary E, !"!#, reads: An Act authori/in+ E. -erritt to brin+ suit a+ainst the &o,ernment of the Philippine Islands and authori/in+ the Attorney4&eneral of said Islands to appear in said suit. <hereas a claim has been filed a+ainst the &o,ernment of the Philippine Islands by -r. E. -erritt, of -anila, for dama+es resultin+ from a collision bet(een his motorcycle and the ambulance of the &eneral 3ospital on -arch t(enty4fifth, nineteen hundred and thirteenD <hereas it is not 1no(n (ho is responsible for the accident nor is it possible to determine the amount of dama+es, if any, to (hich the claimant is entitledD and <hereas the 2irector of Public <or1s and the Attorney4&eneral recommended that an Act be passed by the )e+islature authori/in+ -r. E. -erritt to brin+ suit in the courts a+ainst the &o,ernment, in order that said 5uestions may be decided: No(, therefore, *y authority of the 9nited ;tates, be it enacted by the Philippine )e+islature, that: ;EC'ION !.E. -erritt is hereby authori/ed to brin+ suit in the Court of 7irst Instance of the city of -anila a+ainst the &o,ernment of the Philippine Islands in order to fiA the responsibility for the collision bet(een his motorcycle and the ambulance of the &eneral 3ospital, and to determine the amount of the dama+es, if any, to (hich -r. E. -erritt is entitled on account of said collision, and the Attorney4&eneral of the Philippine Islands is hereby authori/ed and directed to appear at the trial on the behalf of the &o,ernment of said Islands, to defendant said &o,ernment at the same. ;EC. 2. 'his Act shall ta1e effect on its passa+e. Enacted, 7ebruary E, !"!#. 2id the defendant, in enactin+ the abo,e 5uoted Act, simply (ai,e its immunity from suit or did it also concede its liability to the plaintiffL If only the former, then it cannot be held that the Act created any ne( cause of action in fa,or of the plaintiff or eAtended the defendant>s liability to any case not pre,iously reco+ni/ed. All admit that the Insular &o,ernment Bthe defendantC cannot be sued by an indi,idual (ithout its consent. It is also admitted that the instant case is one a+ainst the &o,ernment. As the consent of the &o,ernment to be sued by the plaintiff (as entirely ,oluntary on its part, it is our duty to loo1 carefully into the terms of the consent, and render 0ud+ment accordin+ly. 'he plaintiff (as authori/ed to brin+ this action a+ainst the &o,ernment .in order to fiA the responsibility for the collision bet(een his motorcycle and the ambulance of the &eneral 3ospital and to determine the amount of the dama+es, if any, to (hich -r. E. -erritt is entitled on account of said collision, . . . .. 'hese (ere the t(o 5uestions submitted to the court for determination. 'he Act (as passed .in order that said 5uestions may be decided.. <e ha,e .decided. that the accident (as due solely to the ne+li+ence of the chauffeur, (ho (as at the time an employee of the defendant, and (e ha,e also fiAed the amount of dama+es sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision. 2oes the Act authori/e us to hold that the &o,ernment is le+ally liable for that amountL If not, (e must loo1 else(here for such authority, if it eAists. 'he &o,ernment of the Philippine Islands ha,in+ been .modeled after the 7ederal and ;tate &o,ernments in the 9nited ;tates,. (e may loo1 to the decisions of the hi+h courts of that country for aid in determinin+ the purpose and scope of Act No. 26#. In the 9nited ;tates the rule that the state is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or a+ents (hom it employs, eAcept (hen eApressly made so by le+islati,e enactment, is (ell settled. .'he &o,ernment,. says Justice ;tory, .does not underta1e to +uarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or a+ents (hom it employs, since that (ould in,ol,e it in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and losses, (hich (ould be sub,ersi,e of the public interest.. BClaussen ,s. City of )u,erne, !%E -inn., 6"!, citin+ 9. ;. ,s. ?ir1patric1, " <heat, 2%D F ). Ed., !""D and *eers ,s. ;tates, 2% 3o(., #2D !# ). Ed., ""!.C In the case of -el,in ,s. ;tate B!2! Cal., !FC, the plaintiff sou+ht to reco,er dama+es from the state for personal in0uries recei,ed on account of the ne+li+ence of the state officers at the state fair, a state institution created by the le+islature for the purpose of impro,in+ a+ricultural and 1indred industriesD to disseminate information calculated to educate and benefit the industrial classesD and to ad,ance by such means the material interests of the state, bein+ ob0ects similar to those sou+ht by the public school system. In passin+ upon the 5uestion of the state>s liability for the ne+li+ent acts of its officers or a+ents, the court said: No claim arises a+ainst any +o,ernment is fa,or of an indi,idual, by reason of the misfeasance, laches, or unauthori/ed eAercise of po(ers by its officers or a+ents. BCitin+ &ibbons ,s. 9. ;., $ <all., 2F"D Clodfelter ,s. ;tate, $F N. C., #!, #ED 6! Am. @ep., 66%D Chapman ,s. ;tate, !%6 Cal., F"%D 6E Am. ;t. @ep., !#$D &reen ,s. ;tate, E Cal., 2"D *ourn ,s. 3art, "E Cal., E2!D 2 Am. ;t. @ep., 2%ED ;tory on A+ency, sec. E!".C As to the scope of le+islati,e enactments permittin+ indi,iduals to sue the state (here the cause of action arises out of either fort or contract, the rule is stated in EF Cyc., "!#, thus: *y consentin+ to be sued a state simply (ai,es its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his fa,or, or eAtend its liability to any cause not pre,iously reco+ni/ed. It merely +i,es a remedy to enforce a preeAistin+ liability and submits itself to the 0urisdiction of the court, sub0ect to its ri+ht to interpose any la(ful defense. In Apfelbacher ,s. ;tate B!#2 N. <., !66, ad,anced sheetsC, decided April !F, !"!#, the Act of !"!E, (hich authori/ed the brin+in+ of this suit, read: ;EC'ION !.Authority is hereby +i,en to &eor+e Apfelbacher, of the to(n of ;ummit, <au1esha County, <isconsin, to brin+ suit in such court or courts and in such form or forms as he may be ad,ised for the purpose of settlin+ and determinin+ all contro,ersies (hich he may no( ha,e (ith the ;tate of <isconsin, or its duly authori/ed officers and a+ents, relati,e to the mill property of said &eor+e Apfelbacher, the fish hatchery of the ;tate of <isconsin on the *ar1 @i,er, and the mill property of E,an 3umphrey at the lo(er end of Na+a(ic1a )a1e, and relati,e to the use of the (aters of said *ar1 @i,er and Na+a(ic1a )a1e, all in the county of <au1esha, <isconsin. In determinin+ the scope of this act, the court said: Plaintiff claims that by the enactment of this la( the le+islature admitted liability on the part of the state for the acts of its officers, and that the suit no( stands 0ust as it (ould stand bet(een pri,ate parties. It is difficult to see ho( the act does, or (as intended to do, more than remo,e the state>s immunity from suit. It simply +i,es authority to commence suit for the purpose of settlin+ plaintiff>s contro,ersies (ith the estate. No(here in the act is there a (hisper or su++estion that the court or courts in the disposition of the suit shall depart from (ell established principles of la(, or that the amount of dama+es is the only 5uestion to be settled. 'he act opened the door of the court to the plaintiff. It did not pass upon the 5uestion of liability, but left the suit 0ust (here it (ould be in the absence of the state>s immunity from suit. If the )e+islature had intended to chan+e the rule that obtained in this state so lon+ and to declare liability on the part of the state, it (ould not ha,e left so important a matter to mere inference, but (ould ha,e done so in eApress terms. B-urdoc1 &rate Co. ,s. Common(ealth, !#2 -ass., 2$D 26 N.E., $#6D $ ). @. A., E"".C In 2ennin+ ,s. ;tate B!2E Cal., E!FC, the pro,isions of the Act of !$"E, relied upon and considered, are as follo(s: All persons (ho ha,e, or shall hereafter ha,e, claims on contract or for ne+li+ence a+ainst the state not allo(ed by the state board of eAaminers, are hereby authori/ed, on the terms and conditions herein contained, to brin+ suit thereon a+ainst the state in any of the courts of this state of competent 0urisdiction, and prosecute the same to final 0ud+ment. 'he rules of practice in ci,il cases shall apply to such suits, eAcept as herein other(ise pro,ided. And the court said: 'his statute has been considered by this court in at least t(o cases, arisin+ under different facts, and in both it (as held that said statute did not create any liability or cause of action a+ainst the state (here none eAisted before, but merely +a,e an additional remedy to enforce such liability as (ould ha,e eAisted if the statute had not been enacted. BChapman ,s. ;tate, !%6 Cal., F"%D 6E Am. ;t. @ep., !#$D -el,in ,s. ;tate, !2! Cal., !F.C A statute of -assachusetts enacted in !$$ +a,e to the superior court .0urisdiction of all claims a+ainst the common(ealth, (hether at la( or in e5uity,. (ith an eAception not necessary to be here mentioned. In construin+ this statute the court, in -urdoc1 &rate Co. ,s. Common(ealth B!#2 -ass., 2$C, said: 'he statute (e are discussin+ disclose no intention to create a+ainst the state a ne( and heretofore unreco+ni/ed class of liabilities, but only an intention to pro,ide a 0udicial tribunal (here (ell reco+ni/ed eAistin+ liabilities can be ad0udicated. In ;ipple ,s. ;tate B"" N. =., 2$6C, (here the board of the canal claims had, by the terms of the statute of Ne( =or1, 0urisdiction of claims for dama+es for in0uries in the mana+ement of the canals such as the plaintiff had sustained, Chief Justice @u+er remar1s: .It must be conceded that the state can be made liable for in0uries arisin+ from the ne+li+ence of its a+ents or ser,ants, only by force of some positi,e statute assumin+ such liability.. It bein+ 5uite clear that Act No. 26# does not operate to eAtend the &o,ernment>s liability to any cause not pre,iously reco+ni/ed, (e (ill no( eAamine the substanti,e la( touchin+ the defendant>s liability for the ne+li+ent acts of its officers, a+ents, and employees. Para+raph # of article !"%E of the Ci,il Code reads: 'he state is liable in this sense (hen it acts throu+h a special a+ent, but not (hen the dama+e should ha,e been caused by the official to (hom properly it pertained to do the act performed, in (hich case the pro,isions of the precedin+ article shall be applicable. 'he supreme court of ;pain in definin+ the scope of this para+raph said: 'hat the obli+ation to indemnify for dama+es (hich a third person causes to another by his fault or ne+li+ence is based, as is e,idenced by the same )a( E, 'itle !#, Partida , on that the person obli+ated, by his o(n fault or ne+li+ence, ta1es part in the act or omission of the third party (ho caused the dama+e. It follo(s therefrom that the state, by ,irtue of such pro,isions of la(, is not responsible for the dama+es suffered by pri,ate indi,iduals in conse5uence of acts performed by its employees in the dischar+e of the functions pertainin+ to their office, because neither fault nor e,en ne+li+ence can be presumed on the part of the state in the or+ani/ation of branches of public ser,ice and in the appointment of its a+entsD on the contrary, (e must presuppose all foresi+ht humanly possible on its part in order that each branch of ser,ice ser,es the +eneral (eal an that of pri,ate persons interested in its operation. *et(een these latter and the state, therefore, no relations of a pri,ate nature +o,erned by the ci,il la( can arise eAcept in a case (here the state acts as a 0udicial person capable of ac5uirin+ ri+hts and contractin+ obli+ations. B;upreme Court of ;pain, January , !$"$D $E Jur. Ci,., 26.C 'hat the Ci,il Code in chapter 2, title !F, boo1 6, re+ulates the obli+ations (hich arise out of fault or ne+li+enceD and (hereas in the first article thereof. No. !"%2, (here the +eneral principle is laid do(n that (here a person (ho by an act or omission causes dama+e to another throu+h fault or ne+li+ence, shall be obli+ed to repair the dama+e so done, reference is made to acts or omissions of the persons (ho directly or indirectly cause the dama+e, the follo(in+ articles refers to this persons and imposes an identical obli+ation upon those (ho maintain fiAed relations of authority and superiority o,er the authors of the dama+e, because the la( presumes that in conse5uence of such relations the e,il caused by their o(n fault or ne+li+ence is imputable to them. 'his le+al presumption +i,es (ay to proof, ho(e,er, because, as held in the last para+raph of article !"%E, responsibility for acts of third persons ceases (hen the persons mentioned in said article pro,e that they employed all the dili+ence of a +ood father of a family to a,oid the dama+e, and amon+ these persons, called upon to ans(er in a direct and not a subsidiary manner, are found, in addition to the mother or the father in a proper case, +uardians and o(ners or directors of an establishment or enterprise, the state, but not al(ays, eAcept (hen it acts throu+h the a+ency of a special a+ent, doubtless because and only in this case, the fault or ne+li+ence, (hich is the ori+inal basis of this 1ind of ob0ections, must be presumed to lie (ith the state. 'hat althou+h in some cases the state mi+ht by ,irtue of the +eneral principle set forth in article !"%2 respond for all the dama+e that is occasioned to pri,ate parties by orders or resolutions (hich by fault or ne+li+ence are made by branches of the central administration actin+ in the name and representation of the state itself and as an eAternal eApression of its so,erei+nty in the eAercise of its eAecuti,e po(ers, yet said article is not applicable in the case of dama+es said to ha,e been occasioned to the petitioners by an eAecuti,e official, actin+ in the eAercise of his po(ers, in proceedin+s to enforce the collections of certain property taAes o(in+ by the o(ner of the property (hich they hold in sublease. 'hat the responsibility of the state is limited by article !"%E to the case (herein it acts throu+h a special a+ent Band a special a+ent, in the sense in (hich these (ords are employed, is one (ho recei,es a definite and fiAed order or commission, forei+n to the eAercise of the duties of his office if he is a special officialC so that in representation of the state and bein+ bound to act as an a+ent thereof, he eAecutes the trust confided to him. 'his concept does not apply to any eAecuti,e a+ent (ho is an employee of the actin+ administration and (ho on his o(n responsibility performs the functions (hich are inherent in and naturally pertain to his office and (hich are re+ulated by la( and the re+ulations.. B;upreme Court of ;pain, -ay !$, !"%6D "$ Jur. Ci,., E$", E"%.C 'hat accordin+ to para+raph # of article !"%E of the Ci,il Code and the principle laid do(n in a decision, amon+ others, of the !$th of -ay, !"%6, in a dama+e case, the responsibility of the state is limited to that (hich it contracts throu+h a special a+ent, duly empo(ered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or char+ed (ith some definite purpose (hich +i,es rise to the claim, and not (here the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official char+ed (ith some administrati,e or technical office (ho can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid do(n by the la( of ci,il responsibility. Conse5uently, the trial court in not so decidin+ and in sentencin+ the said entity to the payment of dama+es, caused by an official of the second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infrin+ed the pro,isions of articles !"%2 and !"%E of the Ci,il Code. B;upreme Court of ;pain, July E%, !"!!D !22 Jur. Ci,., !6F.C It is, therefore, e,idence that the ;tate Bthe &o,ernment of the Philippine IslandsC is only liable, accordin+ to the abo,e 5uoted decisions of the ;upreme Court of ;pain, for the acts of its a+ents, officers and employees (hen they act as special a+ents (ithin the meanin+ of para+raph # of article !"%E, supra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the &eneral 3ospital (as not such an a+ent. 7or the fore+oin+ reasons, the 0ud+ment appealed from must be re,ersed, (ithout costs in this instance. <hether the &o,ernment intends to ma1e itself le+ally liable for the amount of dama+es abo,e set forth, (hich the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the ne+li+ent acts of one of its employees, by le+islati,e enactment and by appropriatin+ sufficient funds therefor, (e are not called upon to determine. 'his matter rests solely (ith the )e+islature and not (ith the courts. Arellano, C. J., 'orres, Johnson, and -oreland, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-52119 A"r%- 8, 1991 !)NICI*ALITY O +AN ERNAN/O, LA )NION, "#$%$%on#r &'. 5ON. J)/GE RO!EO N. IR!E, J)ANA RI!AN/O-BANI7A, IA)REANO BANI7A, JR., +OR !ARIETA BANI7A, !ONTANO BANI7A, ORJA BANI7A, AN/ LY/IA R. BANI7A, r#'"on(#n$'. -E2IA)2EA, J.:p 'his is a petition for certiorari (ith prayer for the issuance of a (rit of preliminary mandatory in0unction see1in+ the nullification or modification of the proceedin+s and the orders issued by the respondent Jud+e @omeo N. 7irme, in his capacity as the presidin+ 0ud+e of the Court of 7irst Instance of )a 9nion, ;econd Judicial 2istrict, *ranch I:, *auan+, )a 9nion in Ci,il Case No. !%4*&, entitled .Juana @imando *aniOa, et al. ,s. -acario Nie,eras, et al.. dated No,ember 6, !"#D July !E, !"FD Au+ust 2E,!"FD 7ebruary 2E, !"D -arch !F, !"D July 2F, !""D ;eptember , !""D No,ember , !"" and 2ecember E, !"" and the decision dated October !%, !"" orderin+ defendants -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion and Alfredo *isli+ to pay, 0ointly and se,erally, the plaintiffs for funeral eApenses, actual dama+es consistin+ of the loss of earnin+ capacity of the deceased, attorney>s fees and costs of suit and dismissin+ the complaint a+ainst the Estate of -acario Nie,eras and *ernardo *ala+ot. 'he antecedent facts are as follo(s: Petitioner -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion is a municipal corporation eAistin+ under and in accordance (ith the la(s of the @epublic of the Philippines. @espondent 3onorable Jud+e @omeo N. 7irme is impleaded in his official capacity as the presidin+ 0ud+e of the Court of 7irst Instance of )a 9nion, *ranch I:, *auan+, )a 9nion. <hile pri,ate respondents Juana @imando4*aniOa, )aureano *aniOa, Jr., ;or -arietta *aniOa, -ontano *aniOa, Or0a *aniOa and )ydia @. *aniOa are heirs of the deceased )aureano *aniOa ;r. and plaintiffs in Ci,il Case No. !%4*+ before the aforesaid court. At about o>cloc1 in the mornin+ of 2ecember !F, !"F#, a collision occurred in,ol,in+ a passen+er 0eepney dri,en by *ernardo *ala+ot and o(ned by the Estate of -acario Nie,eras, a +ra,el and sand truc1 dri,en by Jose -anande+ and o(ned by 'an5uilino :elas5ue/ and a dump truc1 of the -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion and dri,en by Alfredo *isli+. 2ue to the impact, se,eral passen+ers of the 0eepney includin+ )aureano *aniOa ;r. died as a result of the in0uries they sustained and four B6C others suffered ,aryin+ de+rees of physical in0uries. On 2ecember !!, !"FF, the pri,ate respondents instituted a compliant for dama+es a+ainst the Estate of -acario Nie,eras and *ernardo *ala+ot, o(ner and dri,er, respecti,ely, of the passen+er 0eepney, (hich (as doc1eted Ci,il Case No. 2!$E in the Court of 7irst Instance of )a 9nion, *ranch I, ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion. 3o(e,er, the aforesaid defendants filed a 'hird Party Complaint a+ainst the petitioner and the dri,er of a dump truc1 of petitioner. 'hereafter, the case (as subse5uently transferred to *ranch I:, presided o,er by respondent 0ud+e and (as subse5uently doc1eted as Ci,il Case No. !%4*+. *y ,irtue of a court order dated -ay , !"#, the pri,ate respondents amended the complaint (herein the petitioner and its re+ular employee, Alfredo *isli+ (ere impleaded for the first time as defendants. Petitioner filed its ans(er and raised affirmati,e defenses such as lac1 of cause of action, non4suability of the ;tate, prescription of cause of action and the ne+li+ence of the o(ner and dri,er of the passen+er 0eepney as the proAimate cause of the collision. In the course of the proceedin+s, the respondent 0ud+e issued the follo(in+ 5uestioned orders, to (it: B!C Order dated No,ember 6, !"# dismissin+ the cross4claim a+ainst *ernardo *ala+otD B2C Order dated July !E, !"F admittin+ the Amended Ans(er of the -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion and *isli+ and settin+ the hearin+ on the affirmati,e defenses only (ith respect to the supposed lac1 of 0urisdictionD BEC Order dated Au+ust 2E, !"F deferrin+ there resolution of the +rounds for the -otion to 2ismiss until the trialD B6C Order dated 7ebruary 2E, !" denyin+ the motion for reconsideration of the order of July !E, !"F filed by the -unicipality and *isli+ for ha,in+ been filed out of timeD B#C Order dated -arch !F, !" reiteratin+ the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order of July !E, !"FD BFC Order dated July 2F, !"" declarin+ the case deemed submitted for decision it appearin+ that parties ha,e not yet submitted their respecti,e memoranda despite the court>s directionD and BC Order dated ;eptember , !"" denyin+ the petitioner>s motion for reconsideration andNor order to recall prosecution (itnesses for cross eAamination. On October !%, !"" the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositi,e portion is hereunder 5uoted as follo(s: IN :IE< O7 A)) O7 BsicC '3E 7O@E&OIN&, 0ud+ment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs, and defendants -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion and Alfredo *isli+ are ordered to pay 0ointly and se,erally, plaintiffs Juana @imando4*aniOa, -rs. Priscilla *. ;urell, )aureano *aniOa Jr., ;or -arietta *aniOa, -rs. 7e *. ;oriano, -ontano *aniOa, Or0a *aniOa and )ydia *. *aniOa the sums of P!,#%%.%% as funeral eApenses and P26,66.26 as the lost eApected earnin+s of the late )aureano *aniOa ;r., PE%,%%%.%% as moral dama+es, and P2,#%%.%% as attorney>s fees. Costs a+ainst said defendants. 'he Complaint is dismissed as to defendants Estate of -acario Nie,eras and *ernardo *ala+ot. ;O O@2E@E2. B@ollo, p. E%C Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and for a ne( trial (ithout pre0udice to another motion (hich (as then pendin+. 3o(e,er, respondent 0ud+e issued another order dated No,ember , !"" denyin+ the motion for reconsideration of the order of ;eptember , !"" for ha,in+ been filed out of time. 7inally, the respondent 0ud+e issued an order dated 2ecember E, !"" pro,idin+ that if defendants municipality and *isli+ further (ish to pursue the matter disposed of in the order of July 2F, !"", such should be ele,ated to a hi+her court in accordance (ith the @ules of Court. 3ence, this petition. Petitioner maintains that the respondent 0ud+e committed +ra,e abuse of discretion amountin+ to eAcess of 0urisdiction in issuin+ the aforesaid orders and in renderin+ a decision. 7urthermore, petitioner asserts that (hile appeal of the decision maybe a,ailable, the same is not the speedy and ade5uate remedy in the ordinary course of la(. On the other hand, pri,ate respondents contro,ert the position of the petitioner and alle+e that the petition is de,oid of merit, utterly lac1in+ the +ood faith (hich is indispensable in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. B@ollo, p. 62.C In addition, the pri,ate respondents stress that petitioner has not considered that e,ery court, includin+ respondent court, has the inherent po(er to amend and control its process and orders so as to ma1e them conformable to la( and 0ustice. B@ollo, p. 6E.C 'he contro,ersy boils do(n to the main issue of (hether or not the respondent court committed +ra,e abuse of discretion (hen it deferred and failed to resol,e the defense of non4suability of the ;tate amountin+ to lac1 of 0urisdiction in a motion to dismiss. In the case at bar, the respondent 0ud+e deferred the resolution of the defense of non4 suability of the ;tate amountin+ to lac1 of 0urisdiction until trial. 3o(e,er, said respondent 0ud+e failed to resol,e such defense, proceeded (ith the trial and thereafter rendered a decision a+ainst the municipality and its dri,er. 'he respondent 0ud+e did not commit +ra,e abuse of discretion (hen in the eAercise of its 0ud+ment it arbitrarily failed to resol,e the ,ital issue of non4suability of the ;tate in the +uise of the municipality. 3o(e,er, said 0ud+e acted in eAcess of his 0urisdiction (hen in his decision dated October !%, !"" he held the municipality liable for the 5uasi4delict committed by its re+ular employee. 'he doctrine of non4suability of the ;tate is eApressly pro,ided for in Article I:I, ;ection E of the Constitution, to (it: .the ;tate may not be sued (ithout its consent.. ;tated in simple parlance, the +eneral rule is that the ;tate may not be sued eAcept (hen it +i,es consent to be sued. Consent ta1es the form of eApress or implied consent. EApress consent may be embodied in a +eneral la( or a special la(. 'he standin+ consent of the ;tate to be sued in case of money claims in,ol,in+ liability arisin+ from contracts is found in Act No. E%$E. A special la( may be passed to enable a person to sue the +o,ernment for an alle+ed 5uasi4delict, as in -erritt ,. &o,ernment of the Philippine Islands BE6 Phil E!!C. Bsee 9nited ;tates of America ,. &uinto, &.@. No. FF%, 7ebruary 2F, !""%, !$2 ;C@A F66, F#6.C Consent is implied (hen the +o,ernment enters into business contracts, thereby descendin+ to the le,el of the other contractin+ party, and also (hen the ;tate files a complaint, thus openin+ itself to a counterclaim. BIbidC -unicipal corporations, for eAample, li1e pro,inces and cities, are a+encies of the ;tate (hen they are en+a+ed in +o,ernmental functions and therefore should en0oy the so,erei+n immunity from suit. Ne,ertheless, they are sub0ect to suit e,en in the performance of such functions because their charter pro,ided that they can sue and be sued. BCru/, Philippine Political )a(, !"$ Edition, p. E"C A distinction should first be made bet(een suability and liability. .;uability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable la( and the established facts. 'he circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liableD on the other hand, it can ne,er be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. )iability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allo(ed itself to be sued. <hen the state does (ai,e its so,erei+n immunity, it is only +i,in+ the plaintiff the chance to pro,e, if it can, that the defendant is liable.. B9nited ;tates of America ,s. &uinto, supra, p. F#"4 FF%C Anent the issue of (hether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee, the test of liability of the municipality depends on (hether or not the dri,er, actin+ in behalf of the municipality, is performin+ +o,ernmental or proprietary functions. As emphasi/ed in the case of 'orio ,s. 7ontanilla B&. @. No. )42"""E, October 2E, !"$. $# ;C@A #"", F%FC, the distinction of po(ers becomes important for purposes of determinin+ the liability of the municipality for the acts of its a+ents (hich result in an in0ury to third persons. Another statement of the test is +i,en in City of ?o1omo ,s. )oy, decided by the ;upreme Court of Indiana in !"!F, thus: -unicipal corporations eAist in a dual capacity, and their functions are t(ofold. In one they eAercise the ri+ht sprin+in+ from so,erei+nty, and (hile in the performance of the duties pertainin+ thereto, their acts are political and +o,ernmental. 'heir officers and a+ents in such capacity, thou+h elected or appointed by them, are ne,ertheless public functionaries performin+ a public ser,ice, and as such they are officers, a+ents, and ser,ants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities eAercise a pri,ate, proprietary or corporate ri+ht, arisin+ from their eAistence as le+al persons and not as public a+encies. 'heir officers and a+ents in the performance of such functions act in behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or indi,idual capacity, and not for the state or so,erei+n po(er.. B!!2 N.E., ""64""#C BIbid, pp. F%#4F%F.C It has already been remar1ed that municipal corporations are suable because their charters +rant them the competence to sue and be sued. Ne,ertheless, they are +enerally not liable for torts committed by them in the dischar+e of +o,ernmental functions and can be held ans(erable only if it can be sho(n that they (ere actin+ in a proprietary capacity. In permittin+ such entities to be sued, the ;tate merely +i,es the claimant the ri+ht to sho( that the defendant (as not actin+ in its +o,ernmental capacity (hen the in0ury (as committed or that the case comes under the eAceptions reco+ni/ed by la(. 7ailin+ this, the claimant cannot reco,er. BCru/, supra, p. 66.C In the case at bar, the dri,er of the dump truc1 of the municipality insists that .he (as on his (ay to the Na+uilian ri,er to +et a load of sand and +ra,el for the repair of ;an 7ernando>s municipal streets.. B@ollo, p. 2".C In the absence of any e,idence to the contrary, the re+ularity of the performance of official duty is presumed pursuant to ;ection EBmC of @ule !E! of the @e,ised @ules of Court. 3ence, <e rule that the dri,er of the dump truc1 (as performin+ duties or tas1s pertainin+ to his office. <e already stressed in the case of PalafoA, et. al. ,s. Pro,ince of Ilocos Norte, the 2istrict En+ineer, and the Pro,incial 'reasurer B!%2 Phil !!$FC that .the construction or maintenance of roads in (hich the truc1 and the dri,er (or1ed at the time of the accident are admittedly +o,ernmental acti,ities.. After a careful eAamination of eAistin+ la(s and 0urisprudence, <e arri,e at the conclusion that the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its re+ular employee, (ho (as then en+a+ed in the dischar+e of +o,ernmental functions. 3ence, the death of the passen+er PP tra+ic and deplorable thou+h it may be PP imposed on the municipality no duty to pay monetary compensation. All premises considered, the Court is con,inced that the respondent 0ud+e>s dereliction in failin+ to resol,e the issue of non4suability did not amount to +ra,e abuse of discretion. *ut said 0ud+e eAceeded his 0urisdiction (hen it ruled on the issue of liability. ACCO@2IN&)=, the petition is &@AN'E2 and the decision of the respondent court is hereby modified, absol,in+ the petitioner municipality of any liability in fa,or of pri,ate respondents. ;O O@2E@E2. Nar,asa, Cru/, &ancayco and &riOo4A5uino, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-29993 O,$o8#r 23, 1918 LA)/ENCIO TORIO, G)ILLER!O E6ANGELI+TA, !AN)EL /E G)3!AN, ALON+O R. !AG+ANOC, JE+)+ !ACARANA+, !A9I!O !ANANGAN, I/EL !ONTE!AYOR, !ELC5OR 6IRAY, RA!ON T)LAGAN, a-- !#:8#r' o. $4# !un%,%"a- Coun,%- o. !a-a'%;u% %n 1959, !a-a'%;u%, *an<a'%nan, "#$%$%on#r', &'. RO+ALINA, ANGELINA, LEONAR/O, E/)AR/O, ARTE!IO, ANGELITA, ANITA, ERNE+TO, NOR!A, 6IRGINIA, RE!E/IO+ an( ROBERTO, a-- 'urna:#( ONTANILLA, an( T5E 5ONORABLE CO)RT O A**EAL+, r#'"on(#n$'. G.R. No. L-30183 O,$o8#r 23, 1918 !)NICI*ALITY O !ALA+I=)I, "#$%$%on#r, &'. RO+ALINA, ANGELINA, LEONAR/O, E/)AR/O, ARTE!IO, ANGELITA, ANITA, ERNE+TO, NOR!A, 6IRGINIA, RE!E/IO+ an( ROBERTO, a-- 'urna:#( ONTANILLA, an( $4# 5onora8-# CO)RT O A**EAL+, r#'"on(#n$'. -9QOG PA)-A, J.: 'hese Petitions for re,ie( present the issue of (hether or not the celebration of a to(n fiesta authori/ed by a municipal council under ;ec. 22$2 of the -unicipal )a( as embodied in the @e,ised Administrati,e Code is a +o,ernmental or a corporate or proprietary function of the municipality. A resolution of that issue (ill lead to another, ,i/ the ci,il liability for dama+es of the -unicipality of -alasi5ui, and the members of the -unicipal Council of -alasi5ui, pro,ince of Pan+asinan, for a death (hich occurred durin+ the celebration of the to(n fiesta on January 22, !"#", and (hich (as attributed to the ne+li+ence of the municipality and its council members. 'he follo(in+ facts are not in dispute: On October 2!, !"#$, the -unicipal Council of -alasi5ui, Pan+asinan, passed @esolution No. !#" (hereby .it resol,ed to mana+e the !"#" -alasi5ui to(n fiesta celebration on January 2!, 22, and 2E, !"#".. @esolution No. !$2 (as also passed creatin+ the .!"#" -alasi5ui >'o(n 7iesta EAecuti,e Committee. (hich in turn or+ani/ed a sub4committee on entertainment and sta+e, (ith Jose -acarae+ as Chairman. the council appropriated the amount of P!%%.%% for the construction of 2 sta+es, one for the ./ar/uela. and another for the cancionan Jose -acarae+ super,ised the construction of the sta+e and as constructed the sta+e for the ./ar/uela. (as .#4R meters by $ meters in si/e, had a (ooden floor hi+h at the rear and (as supported by 26 bamboo posts 8 6 in a ro( in front, 6 in the rear and # on each side 8 (ith bamboo braces.. ! 'he ./ar/uela. entitled .-idas EAtra,a+an/a. (as donated by an association of -alasi5ui employees of the -anila @ailroad Company in Caloocan, @i/al. 'he troupe arri,ed in the e,enin+ of January 22 for the performance and one of the members of the +roup (as :icente 7ontanilla. 'he pro+ram started at about !%:!# o>cloc1 that e,enin+ (ith some speeches, and many persons (ent up the sta+e. 'he ./ar/uela. then be+an but before the dramatic part of the play (as reached, the sta+e collapsed and :icente 7ontanilla (ho (as at the rear of the sta+e (as pinned underneath. 7ontanilia (as ta1en to tile ;an Carlos &eneral 3ospital (here he died in the afternoon of the follo(in+ day. 'he heirs of :icente 7ontanilia filed a complaint (ith the Court of 7irst Instance of -anila on ;eptember !!, !"#" to reco,er dama+es. Named party4defendants (ere the -unicipality of -alasi5ui, the -unicipal Council of -alasi5ui and all the indi,idual members of the -unicipal Council in !"#". Ans(erin+ the complaint defendant municipality in,o1ed inter alia the principal defense that as a le+ally and duly or+ani/ed public corporation it performs so,erei+n functions and the holdin+ of a to(n fiesta (as an eAercise of its +o,ernmental functions from (hich no liability can arise to ans(er for the ne+li+ence of any of its a+ents. 'he defendant councilors inturn maintained that they merely acted as a+ents of the municipality in carryin+ out the municipal ordinance pro,idin+ for the mana+ement of the to(n fiesta celebration and as such they are li1e(ise not liable for dama+es as the underta1in+ (as not one for profitD furthermore, they had eAercised due care and dili+ence in implementin+ the municipal ordinance. 2 After trial, the Presidin+ Jud+e, 3on. &re+orio '. )antin narro(ed the issue to (hether or not the defendants eAercised due dili+ence >m the construction of the sta+e. 7rom his findin+s he arri,ed at the conclusion that the EAecuti,e Committee appointed by the municipal council had eAercised due dili+ence and care li1e a +ood father of the family in selectin+ a competent man to construct a sta+e stron+ enou+h for the occasion and that if it collapsed that (as due to forces beyond the control of the committee on entertainment, conse5uently, the defendants (ere not liable for dama+es for the death of :icente 7ontanilla. 'he complaint (as accordin+ly dismissed in a decision dated July !%, !"F2. E 'he 7ontanillas appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision Promul+ated on October E!, !"F$, the Court of Appeals throu+h its 7ourth 2i,ision composed at the time of Justices ;al,ador :. Es+uerra, Nicasio A. =atco and Eulo+io ;. ;errano re,ersed the trial court>s decision and ordered all the defendants4appellees to pay 0ointly and se,erally the heirs of :icente 7ontanilla the sums of P!2,%%%.%% by (ay of moral and actual dama+es: P!2%%.%% its attorney>s feesD and the costs. 'he case is no( before 9s on ,arious assi+nments of errors all of (hich center on the proposition stated at the sentence of this Opinion and (hich <e repeat: Is the celebration of a to(n fiesta an underta1in+ in the eAcercise of a municipality>s +o,ernmental or public function or is it or a pri,ate or proprietary characterL !. 9nder Philippine la(s municipalities are political bodies corporate and as such a+ endo(ed (ith the faculties of municipal corporations to be eAercised by and throu+h their respecti,e municipal +o,ernments in conformity (ith la(, and in their proper corporate name, they may inter alia sue and be sued, and contract and be contracted (ith. # 'he po(ers of a municipality are t(ofold in character public, +o,ernmental or political on the one hand, and corporate, pri,ate, or proprietary on the other. &o,ernmental po(ers are those eAercised by the corporation in administerin+ the po(ers of the state and promotin+ the public (elfare and they include the le+islati,e, 0udicial public, and political -unicipal po(ers on the other hand are eAercised for the special benefit and ad,anta+e of the community and include those (hich are ministerial pri,ate and corporate. F As to (hen a certain acti,ity is +o,ernmental and (hen proprietary or pri,ate, that is +enerally a difficult matter to determine. 'he e,olution of the municipal la( in American Jurisprudence, for instance, has sho(n thatD none of the tests (hich ha,e e,ol,ed and are stated in teAtboo1s ha,e set do(n a conclusi,e principle or rule, so that each case (ill ha,e to be determined on the basis of attendin+ circumstances. In -cMuillin on -unicipal Corporations, the rule is stated thus: .A municipal corporation proper has ... a public character as re+ards the state at lar+e insofar as it is its a+ent in +o,ernment, and pri,ate Bso4calledC insofar as it is to promote local necessities and con,eniences for its o(n community. Another statement of the test is +i,en in City of ?o1omo ,. )oy, decided by the ;upreme Court of Indiana in !"!F, thus: -unicipal corporations eAist in a dual capacity, and their functions are t(o fold. In one they eAercise the ri+ht sprin+in+ from so,erei+nty, and (hile in the performance of the duties pertainin+ thereto, their acts are political and +o,ernmental 'heir officers and a+ents in such capacity, thou+h elected or appointed by the are ne,ertheless public functionaries performin+ a public ser,ice, and as such they are officers, a+ents, and ser,ants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities eAercise a pri,ate. proprietary or corporate ri+ht, arisin+ from their eAistence as le+al persons and not as public a+encies. 'heir officers and a+ents in the performance of such functions act in behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or in. indi,idual capacity, and not for the state or so,erei+n po(er. B!!2 N. E ""64""#C In the early Philippine case of -endo/a ,. de )eon !"!F, the ;upreme Court, throu+h Justice &rant '. 'rent, relyin+ mainly on American Jurisprudence classified certain acti,ities of the municipality as +o,ernmental, e.+.: re+ulations a+ainst fire, disease, preser,ation of public peace, maintenance of municipal prisons, establishment of schools, post4offices, etc. (hile the follo(in+ are corporate or proprietary in character, ,i/: municipal (ater(or1, slau+hter houses, mar1ets, stables, bathin+ establishments, (har,es, ferries, and fisheries. $ -aintenance of par1s, +olf courses, cemeteries and airports amon+ others, are also reco+ni/ed as municipal or city acti,ities of a proprietary character. " 2. 'his distinction of po(ers becomes important for purposes of determinin+ the liability of the municipality for the acts of its a+ents (hich result in an in0ury to third persons. If the in0ury is caused in the course of the performance of a +o,ernmental function or duty no reco,ery, as a rule, can be. had from the municipality unless there is an eAistin+ statute on the matter, !% nor from its officers, so lon+ as they performed their duties honestly and in +ood faith or that they did not act (antonly and maliciously. !! In PalafoA, et al., ,. Pro,ince of Ilocos Norte, et al., !"#$, a truc1 dri,er employed by the pro,incial +o,ernment of Ilocos Norte ran o,er Proceto PalafoA in the course of his (or1 at the construction of a road. 'he ;upreme Court in affirmin+ the trial court>s dismissal of the complaint for dama+es held that the pro,ince could not be made liable because its employee (as in the performance of a +o,ernmental function 8 the construction and maintenance of roads 8 and ho(e,er tra+ic and deplorable it may be, the death of PalafoA imposed on the pro,ince no duty to pay monetary consideration. !2 <ith respect to proprietary functions, the settled rule is that a municipal corporation can be held liable to third persons eA contract !E or eA delicto. !6 -unicipal corporations are sub0ect to be sued upon contracts and in tort. ... AAA AAA AAA 'he rule of la( is a +eneral one, that the superior or employer must ans(er ci,illy for the ne+li+ence or (ant of s1ill of its a+ent or ser,ant in the course or fine of his employment, by (hich another, (ho is free from contributory fault, is in0ured. -unicipal corporations under the conditions herein stated, fall (ithin the operation of this rule of la(, and are liable, accordin+ly, to ci,il actions for dama+es (hen the re5uisite elements of liability co4eAist. ... B2illon on -unicipal Corporations, #th ed. ;ec. !F!%,!F6, cited in -endo/a ,. de )eon, supra. #!6C E. Comin+ to the cam before 9s, and applyin+ the +eneral tests +i,en abo,e, <e hold that the holdin+ of the to(n fiesta in !"#" by the municipality of -alsi5ui Pan+asinan (as an eAercise of a pri,ate or proprietary function of the municipality. ;ection 22$2 of the Chatter on -unicipal )a( of the @e,ised Administrati,e Code pro,ides: ;ection 22$2. Celebration of fiesta. 8 fiesta may be held in each municipality not oftener than once a year upon a date fiAed by the municipal council A fiesta s not be held upon any other date than that la(fully fiAed therefor, eAcept (hen, for (ei+hty reasons, such as typhoons, foundations, earth5ua1es, epidemics, or other public ties, the fiesta cannot be hold in the date fiAed in (hich case it may be held at a later date in the same year, by resolution of the council. 'his pro,ision simply +i,es authority to the municipality to celebrate a yearly fiesta but it does not impose upon it a duty to obser,e one. 3oldin+ a fiesta e,en if the purpose is to commemorate a reli+ious or historical e,ent of the to(n is in essence an act for the special benefit of the community and not for the +eneral (elfare of the public performed in pursuance of a policy of the state. 'he mere fact that the celebration, as claimed (as not to secure profit or +ain but merely to pro,ide entertainment to the to(n inhabitants is not a conclusi,e test. 7or instance, the maintenance of par1s is not a source of income for the nonetheless it is pri,ate underta1in+ as distin+uished from the maintenance of public schools, 0ails, and the li1e (hich are for public ser,ice. As stated earlier, there can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of determinin+ the true nature of an underta1in+ or function of a municipalityD the surroundin+ circumstances of a particular case are to be considered and (ill be decisi,e. 'he basic element, ho(e,er beneficial to the public the underta1in+ may be, is that it is +o,ernmental in essence, other(ise the function becomes pri,ate or proprietary in character. Easily, no +o,ernmental or public policy of the state is in,ol,ed in the celebration of a to(n fiesta. 6. It follo(s that under the doctrine of respondent superior, petitioner4municipality is to be held liable for dama+es for the death of :icente 7ontanilia if that (as attributable to the ne+li+ence of the municipality>s officers, employees, or a+ents. Art. 2!F, Ci,il Code: <hoe,er by act or omission causes dama+e to another, there bein+ fault or ne+li+ence, is obli+ed to pay for the dama+e done. . . Art. 2!$%, Ci,il Code: 'he obli+ation imposed by article 2!F is demandable not only for one>s o(n acts or omission, but also for those of persons for (hom one is responsible. . . On this point, the Court of Appeals found and held that there (as ne+li+ence. 'he trial court +a,e credence to the testimony of An+el No,ado, a (itness of the defendants Bno( petitionersC, that a member of the .eAtra,a+an/a troupe remo,ed t(o principal braces located on the front portion of the sta+e and u them to han+ the screen or .telon., and that (hen many people (ent up the sta+e the latter collapsed. 'his testimony (as not belie,ed ho(e,er by respondent appellate court, and ri+htly so. Accordin+ to said defendants, those t(o braces (ere .mother. or .principal. braces located semi4dia+onally from the front ends of the sta+e to the front posts of the tic1et booth located at the rear of the sta+e and (ere fastened (ith a bamboo t(ine. 'hat bein+ the case, it becomes incredible that any person in his ri+ht mind (ould remo,e those principal braces and lea,e the front portion of the sta+e practically unsuported -oreo,er, if that did happen, there (as indeed ne+li+ence as there (as lac1 of suspension o,er the use of the sta+e to pre,ent such an occurrence. At any rate, the +uitarist (ho (as pointed to by No,ado as the person (ho remo,ed the t(o bamboo braces denied ha,in+ done so. 'he Court of Appeals said .Amor by himself alone could not ha,e remo,ed the t(o braces (hich must be about ten meters lon+ and fastened them on top of the sta+s for the curtain. 'he sta+e (as only fi,e and a half meters (ide. ;urely, it, (ould be impractical and un(ieldy to use a ten meter bamboo pole, much more t(o poles for the sta+e curtain. 'he appellate court also found that the sta+e (as not stron+ enou+h considerin+ that only P!%%.%% (as appropriate for the construction of t(o sta+es and (hile the floor of the ./ar/uela. sta+e (as of (ooden plan1s, the Post and braces used (ere of bamboo material <e li1e(ise obser,e that althou+h the sta+e (as described by the Petitioners as bein+ supported by .26. posts, ne,ertheless there (ere only 6 in front, 6 at the rear, and # on each side. <here (ere the restL 'he Court of Appeals thus concluded 'he court a 5uo itself attributed the collapse of the sta+e to the +reat number of onloo1ers (ho mounted the sta+e. 'he municipality andNor its a+ents had the necessary means (ithin its command to pre,ent such an occurrence. 3a,in+ failed to ta1e the necessary steps to maintain the safety of the sta+e for the use of the participants in the sta+e presentation prepared in connection (ith the celebration of the to(n fiesta, particularly, in pre,entin+ non participants or spectators from mountin+ and accumulatin+ on the sta+e (hich (as not constructed to meet the additional (ei+ht4 the defendant4appellees (ere ne+li+ent and are liable for the death of :icente 7ontanilla . Bpp. E%4E!, rollo, )42"""EC 'he findin+s of the respondent appellate court that the facts as presented to it establish ne+li+ence as a matter of la( and that the -unicipality failed to eAercise the due dili+ence of a +ood father of the family, (ill not disturbed by 9s in the absence of a clear sho(in+ of an abuse of discretion or a +ross misapprehension of facts.. !$ )iability rests on ne+li+ence (hich is .the (ant of such care as a person of ordinary prudence (ould eAercise under the circumstances of the case.. !" 'hus, pri,ate respondents ar+ue that the .-idas EAtra,a+an/a. (hich (as to be performed durin+ the to(n fiesta (as a .donation. offered by an association of -alasi5ui employees of the -anila @ailroad Co. in Caloocan, and that (hen the -unicipality of -alasi5ui accepted the donation of ser,ices and constructed precisely a ./ar/uela sta+e. for the purpose, the participants in the sta+e sho( had the ri+ht to eApect that the -unicipality throu+h its .Committee on entertainment and sta+e. (ould build or put up a sta+e or platform stron+ enou+h to sustain the (ei+ht or burden of the performance and ta1e the necessary measures to insure the personal safety of the participants. 2% <e a+ree. Muite rele,ant to that ar+ument is the American case of ;anders ,. City of )on+ *each, !"62, (hich (as an action a+ainst the city for in0uries sustained from a fall (hen plaintiff (as descendin+ the steps of the city auditorium. 'he city (as conductin+ a .?no( your City <ee1. and one of the features (as the sho(in+ of a motion picture in the city auditorium to (hich the +eneral public (as in,ited and plaintiff ;anders (as one of those (ho attended. In sustainin+ the a(ard for 2ama+es in fa,or of plaintiff, the 2istrict Court of Appeal, ;econd district, California, held inter alia that the .?no( your City <ee1. (as a .proprietary acti,ity. and not a .+o,ernmental one. of the city, that defendant o(ed to plaintiff, an in,itee the duty of eAercisin+ ordinary care for her safety, and plaintiff (as entitled to assume that she (ould not be eAposed to a dan+er B(hich in this case consisted of lac1 of sufficient illumination of the premisesC that (ould come to her throu+h a ,iolation of defendant duty. 2! <e can say that the deceased :icente 7ontanilla (as similarly situated as ;ander 'he -unicipality of -alasi5ui resol,ed to celebrate the to(n fiesta in January of !"#"D it created a committee in char+e of the entertainment and sta+eD an association of -alasi5ui residents responded to the call for the festi,ities and ,olunteered to present a sta+e sho(D :icente 7ontanilla (as one of the participants (ho li1e ;anders had the ri+ht to eApect that he (ould be eAposed to dan+er on that occasion. )astly, petitioner or appellant -unicipality cannot e,ade ability andNor liability under the c that it (as Jose -acarae+ (ho constructed the sta+e. 'he municipality actin+ throu+h its municipal council appointed -acarae+ as chairman of the sub4committee on entertainment and in char+e of the construction of the ./ar/uela. sta+e. -acarae+ acted merely as an a+ent of the -unicipality. 9nder the doctrine of respondent superior mentioned earlier, petitioner is responsible or liable for the ne+li+ence of its a+ent actin+ (ithin his assi+ned tas1s. ... (hen it is sou+ht to render a municipal corporation liable for the act of ser,ants or a+ents, a cardinal in5uiry is, (hether they are the ser,ants or a+ents of the corporation. If the corporation appoints or elects them, can control them in the dischar+e of their duties, can continue or remo,e the can hold them responsible for the manner in (hich they dischar+e their trust, and if those duties relate to the eAercise of corporate po(ers, and are for the benefit of the corporation in its local or special interest, they may 0ustly be re+arded as its a+ents or ser,ants, and the maAim of respondent superior applies.. ... B2illon on -unicipal Corporations, #th Ed., :ol I:, p. 2$"C #. 'he remainin+ 5uestion to be resol,ed centers on the liability of the municipal councilors (ho enacted the ordinance and created the fiesta committee. 'he Court of Appeals held the councilors 0ointly and solidarity liable (ith the municipality for dama+es under Article 2 of the Ci,il Code (hich pro,ides that d any person sufferin+ in+ material or moral loss because a public ser,ant or employee refuses or ne+lects, (ithout 0ust cause to perform his official duty may file an action for dama+es and other relief at the latter. 2E In their Petition for re,ie( the municipal councilors alle+e that the Court of Appeals erred in rulin+ that the holdin+ of a to(n fiesta is not a +o,ernmental function and that there (as ne+li+ence on their part for not maintainin+ and super,isin+ the safe use of the sta+e, in applyin+ Article 2 of the Ci,il Code a+ainst them and in not holdin+ Jose -acarae+ liable for the collapse of the sta+e and the conse5uent death of :icente 7ontanilla. 26 <e a+ree (ith petitioners that the Court of Appeals erred in applyin+ Article 2 of the Ci,il Code a+ainst the for this particular article co,ers a case of nonfeasance or non4 performance by a public officer of his official dutyD it does not apply to a case of ne+li+ence or misfeasance in carryin+ out an official duty. If <e are led to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as these petitioners are concerned, it is because of a plain error committed by respondent court (hich ho(e,er is not in,o1ed in petitioners> brief. In -i+uel ,. 'he Court of appeal. et al., the Court, throu+h Justice, no( Chief Justice, 7red @ui/ Castro, held that the ;upreme Court is ,ested (ith ample authority to re,ie( matters not assi+ned as errors in an appeal if it finds that their consideration and resolution are indispensable or necessary in arri,in+ at a 0ust decision in a +i,en case, and that tills is author under ;ec. , @ule #! of the @ules of Court. 2# <e belie,e that this pronouncement can (ell be applied in the instant case. 'he Court of Appeals in its decision no( under re,ie( held that the celebration of a to(n fiesta by the -unicipality of -alasi5ui (as not a +o,ernmental function. <e upheld that rulin+. 'he le+al conse5uence thereof is that the -unicipality stands on the same footin+ as an ordinary pri,ate corporation (ith the municipal council actin+ as its board of directors. It is an elementary principle that a corporation has a personality, separate and distinct from its officers, directors, or persons composin+ it 2F and the latter are not as a rule co4responsible in an action for dama+es for tort or ne+li+ence culpa a5uilla committed by the corporation>s employees or a+ents unless there is a sho(in+ of bad faith or +ross or (anton ne+li+ence on their part. 2 AAA AAA AAA 'he ordinary doctrine is that a director, merely by reason of his office, is not personally ;table for the torts of his corporationD he -ust be sho(n to ha,e personally ,oted for or other(ise participated in them ... 7letcher Encyclopedia Corporations, :ol EA Chapt !!, p. 2%C Officers of a corporation >are not held liable for the ne+li+ence of the corporation merely because of their official relation to it, but because of some (ron+ful or ne+li+ent act by such officer amountin+ to a breach of duty (hich resulted in an in0ury ... 'o ma1e an officer of a corporation liable for the ne+li+ence of the corporation there must ha,e been upon his part such a breach of duty as contributed to, or helped to brin+ about, the in0uryD that is to say, he must be a participant in the (ron+ful act. ... Bpp. 2%42%$, Ibid.C AAA AAA AAA 2irectors (ho merely employ one to +i,e a fire(or1s Ambition on the corporate are not personally liable for the ne+li+ent acts of the eAhibitor. Bp. 2!!, Ibid.C On these people <e absol,e municipal councilors from any liability for the death of :icente 7ontanilla. 'he records do not sho( that said petitioners directly participated in the defecti,e construction of the ./ar/uela. sta+e or that they personally permitted spectators to +o up the platform. F. One last point <e ha,e to resol,e is on the a(ard of attorney>s fees by respondent court. Petitioner4municipality assails the a(ard. 9nder para+raph !!, Art. 22%$ of the Ci,il Code attorney>s fees and eApenses of liti+ation may be +ranted (hen the court deems it 0ust and e5uitable. In this case of :icente 7ontanilla, althou+h respondent appellate court failed to state the +rounds for a(ardin+ attorney>s fees, the records sho( ho(e,er that attempts (ere made by plaintiffs, no( pri,ate respondents, to secure an eAtra0udicial compensation from the municipality: that the latter +a,e prorases and assurances of assistance but failed to complyD and it (as only ei+ht month after the incident that the berea,ed family of :icente 7ontanilla (as compelled to see1 relief from the courts to ,entilate (hat (as belie,ed to be a 0ust cause. 2$ <e hold, therefore, that there is no error committed in the +rant of attorney>s fees (hich after all is a matter of 0udicial discretion. 'he amount of P!,2%%.%% is fair and reasonable. P@E-I;E; CON;I2E@E2, <e A77I@- in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as the -unicipality of -alasi5ui is concerned B)4E%!$EC, and <e absol,e the municipal councilors from liability and ;E' A;I2E the 0ud+ment a+ainst them B)4"""EC. <ithout pronouncement as to costs. ;O O@2E@E2, >G.R. No. 91882. Au<u'$ 28, 1996? T5E CITY O ANGELE+, 5on. ANTONIO ABA/ +ANTO+, %n 4%' ,a"a,%$y a' !AYOR o. An<#-#' C%$y, an( $4# +ANGG)NIANG *ANL)NG+O/ O T5E CITY O ANGELE+, "#$%$%on#r', &'. CO)RT O A**EAL+ an( TI!OG +ILANGAN /E6ELO*!ENT COR*ORATION, r#'"on(#n$'. / E C I + I O N PAN&ANI*AN, J.: In resol,in+ this petition, the Court addressed the 5uestions of (hether a donor of open spaces in a residential subdi,ision can ,alidly impose conditions on the said donationD (hether the city +o,ernment as donee can build and operate a dru+ rehabilitation center on the donated land intended for open spaceD and (hether the said donation may be ,alidly rescinded by the donor. Petitioners claim they ha,e the ri+ht to construct and operate a dru+ rehabilitation center on the donated land in 5uestion, contrary to the pro,isions stated in the amended 2eed of 2onation. On the other hand, pri,ate respondent, o(nerNde,eloper of the 'imo+ Par1 residential subdi,ision in An+eles City, opposed the construction and no(, the operation of the said center on the donated land, (hich is located (ithin said residential subdi,ision. *efore us is a petition for re,ie( on certiorari assailin+ the 2ecisionJ!K of the Court of AppealsJ2K dated October E!, !""%, (hich affirmed the decisionJEK of the @e+ional 'rial Court of An+eles City *ranch #F,J6K dated 7ebruary !#, !"$". 'he Antecedents In a 2eed of 2onation dated -arch ", !"$6, subse5uently superseded by a 2eed of 2onation dated ;eptember 2, !"$6, (hich in turn (as superseded by an Amended 2eed of 2onation dated No,ember 2F, !"$6, pri,ate respondent donated to the City of An+eles, #! parcels of land situated in *arrio Pampan+, City of An+eles, (ith an a++re+ate area of #%,FF s5uare meters, more or less, part of a bi++er area also belon+in+ to pri,ate respondent. 'he amended deedJ#Kpro,ided, amon+ others, that: S2. 'he properties donated shall be de,oted and utili/ed solely for the site of the An+eles City ;ports Center B(hich eAcludes coc1fi+htin+C pursuant to the plans to be submitted (ithin siA BFC months by the 2ONEE to the 2ONO@ for the latterTs appro,al, (hich appro,al shall not be unreasonably (ithheld as lon+ as entire properties donated are de,eloped as a ;ports CompleA. Any chan+e or modification in the basic desi+n or concept of said ;ports Center must ha,e the prior (ritten consent of the 2ONO@. SE. No commercial buildin+, commercial compleA, mar1et or any other similar compleA, mass or tenament BsicC housin+Nbuildin+sBsC shall be constructed in the properties donated nor shall coc1fi+htin+, be allo(ed in the premises. S6. 'he construction of the ;ports Center shall commence (ithin a period of one B!C year from %" -arch !"$6 and shall be completed (ithin a period of fi,e B#C years from %" -arch !"$6. AAA AAA AAA SF. 'he properties donated B(hich is more than fi,e B#C percent of the total land area of the 2ONO@Ts subdi,isionC shall constitute the entire open space for 2ONO@Ts subdi,ision and all other lands or areas pre,iously reser,ed or desi+nated, includin+ )ot ! and )ot 2A of *loc1 2 and the (hole *loc1 2" are dispensed (ith, and rendered free, as open spaces, and the 2ONEE hereby a+rees to eAecute and deli,er all necessary consents, appro,als, endorsements, and authori/ations to effect the fore+oin+. . 'he properties donated are de,oted and described as Uopen spacesT of the 2ONO@Ts subdi,ision, and to this effect, the 2ONEE, upon acceptance of this donation, releases the 2ONO@ andNor assumes any and all obli+ations and liabilities appertainin+ to the properties donated. $. Any substantial breach of the fore+oin+ pro,isos shall entitle the 2ONO@ to re,o1e or rescind this 2eed of 2onation, and in such e,entuality, the 2ONEE a+rees to ,acate and return the premises, to+ether (ith all impro,ements, to the 2ONO@ peacefully (ithout necessity of 0udicial action.V On July !", !"$$, petitioners started the construction of a dru+ rehabilitation center on a portion of the donated land. 9pon learnin+ thereof, pri,ate respondent protested such action for bein+ ,iolati,e of the terms and conditions of the amended deed and pre0udicial to its interest and to those of its clients and residents. Pri,ate respondent also offered another site for the rehabilitation center. 3o(e,er, petitioners i+nored the protest, maintainin+ that the construction (as not ,iolati,e of the terms of the donation. 'he alternati,e site (as re0ected because, accordin+ to petitioners, the site (as too isolated and had no electric and (ater facilities. On Au+ust $, !"$$, pri,ate respondent filed a complaint (ith the @e+ional 'rial Court, *ranch #F, in An+eles City a+ainst the petitioners, alle+in+ breach of the conditions imposed in the amended deed of donation and see1in+ the re,ocation of the donation and dama+es, (ith preliminary in0unction andNor temporary restrainin+ order to halt the construction of the said center. On Au+ust !%, !"$$, the trial court issued a temporary restrainin+ order to en0oin the petitioners from further proceedin+ (ith the construction of the center, (hich at that time (as already 6%W complete. 3o(e,er, the trial court denied the prayer for preliminary in0unction based on the prohibition in Presidential 2ecree No. !$!$. In their Ans(er (ith counterclaim, petitioners admitted the commencement of the construction but alle+ed inter alia that the conditions imposed in the amended deed (ere contrary to -unicipal Ordinance No. !, ;eries of !"F2, other(ise 1no(n as the ;ubdi,ision Ordinance of the -unicipality of An+eles.JFK On October !#, !"$$, pri,ate respondent filed a -otion for Partial ;ummary Jud+ment on the +round that the main defense of the petitioners (as anchored on a pure 5uestion of la( and that their le+al position (as untenable. 'he petitioners opposed, contendin+ that they had a meritorious defense as B!C pri,ate respondents had no ri+ht to dictate upon petitioners (hat to do (ith the donated land and ho( to do it so lon+ as the purpose remains for public useD and B2C the cause of action of the pri,ate respondent became moot and academic (hen the An+eles City Council repealed the resolution pro,idin+ for the construction of said dru+ rehabilitation center and adopted a ne( resolution chan+in+ the purpose and usa+e of said center to a Usports de,elopment and youth centerT in order to conform (ith the sports compleA pro0ect constructed on the donated land. On 7ebruary !#, !"$", the trial court rendered its decision, in rele,ant part readin+ as follo(s: SA A A the Court finds no inconsistency bet(een the conditions imposed in the 2eeds of 2onation and the pro,ision of the ;ubdi,ision Ordinance of the City of An+eles re5uirin+ subdi,isions in An+eles City to reser,e at least one B!C hectare in the subdi,ision as suitable sites 1no(n as open spaces for par1s, play+rounds, playlots andNor other areas to be dedicated to public use. On the contrary, the condition re5uirin+ the defendant city of An+eles to de,ote and utili/e the properties donated to it by the plaintiff for the site of the An+eles City ;ports Center conforms (ith the re5uirement in the ;ubdi,ision Ordinance that the subdi,ision of the plaintiff shall be pro,ided (ith a play+round or playlot, amon+ others. On the other hand the term Spublic useV in the ;ubdi,ision Ordinance should not be construed to include a 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center as that (ould be contrary to the primary purpose of the ;ubdi,ision Ordinance re5uirin+ the settin+ aside of a portion 1no(n as SOpen ;paceV for par1, play+round and playlots, since these are intended primarily for the benefit of the residents of the subdi,ision. <hile laudable to the +eneral public, a 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center in a subdi,ision (ill be a cause of concern and constant (orry to its residents. As to the third issue in para+raph BEC, the passa+e of the Ordinance chan+in+ the purpose of the buildin+ constructed in the donated properties from a 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center to a ;ports Center comes too late. It should ha,e been passed upon the demand of the plaintiff to the defendant City of An+eles to stop the construction of the 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center, not after the complaint (as filed. *esides, in see1in+ the re,ocation of the Amended 2eed of 2onation, plaintiff also relies on the failure of the defendant City of An+eles to submit the plan of the proposed ;ports Center (ithin siA BFC months and construction of the same (ithin fi,e years from -arch ", !"$6, (hich are substantial ,iolations of the conditions imposed in the Amended 2eed of 2onation.V 'he dispositi,e portion of the @'C decision reads: S<3E@E7O@E, 0ud+ment is hereby rendered: B!C En0oinin+ defendants, its officers, employees and all persons actin+ on their behalf to perpetually cease and desist from constructin+ a 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center or any other buildin+ or impro,ement on the 2onated )and. B2C 2eclarin+ the amended 2eed of 2onation re,o1ed and rescinded and orderin+ defendants to peacefully ,acate and return the 2onated )and to plaintiff, to+ether (ith all the impro,ements eAistin+ thereon. And, BEC 2enyin+ the a(ard of compensatory or actual and eAemplary dama+es includin+ attorneyTs fees. NO P@ONO9NCE-EN' A; 'O CO;'.V In -arch !"$", petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal. On April !#, !"$", (hile the appeal (as pendin+, petitioners inau+urated the 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center.JK On April 2F, !""!, the respondent Court rendered the assailed 2ecision affirmin+ the rulin+ of the trial court. ;ubse5uently, the petitionersT motion for reconsideration (as also denied for lac1 of merit. Conse5uently, this Petition for @e,ie(. 'he Issues 'he 1ey issues raised by petitioners may be restated as follo(s: I. <hether a subdi,ision o(nerNde,eloper is le+ally bound under Presidential 2ecree No. !2!F to donate to the city or municipality the Sopen spaceV allocated eAclusi,ely for par1s, play+round and recreational use. II. <hether the percenta+e of the Sopen spaceV allocated eAclusi,ely for par1s, play+rounds and recreational use is to be based on the S+ross areaV of the subdi,ision or on the total area reser,ed for Sopen space.V III. <hether pri,ate respondent as subdi,ision o(nerNde,eloper may ,alidly impose conditions in the Amended 2eed of 2onation re+ardin+ the use of the Sopen spaceV allocated eAclusi,ely for par1s and play+rounds. I:. <hether or not the construction of the 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center on the donated Sopen spaceV may be en0oined. :. <hether the donation by respondent as subdi,ision o(nerNde,eloper of the Sopen spaceV of its subdi,ision in fa,or of petitioner City of An+eles may be re,o1ed for alle+ed ,iolation of the Amended 2eed of 2onation. Central to this entire contro,ersy is the 5uestion of (hether the donation of the open space may be re,o1ed at all. 7irst Issue: 2e,eloper )e+ally *ound to 2onate Open ;pace 'he la( in,ol,ed in the instant case is Presidential 2ecree No. !2!F, dated October !6, !",J"K (hich reads: SP@E;I2EN'IA) 2EC@EE NO. !2!F 2efinin+ UOpen ;paceT In @esidential ;ubdi,isions And Amendin+ ;ection E! Of Presidential 2ecree No. "# @e5uirin+ ;ubdi,ision O(ners 'o Pro,ide @oads, Alleys, ;ide(al1s And @eser,e Open ;pace 7or Par1s Or @ecreational 9se. <3E@EA;, there is a compellin+ need to create and maintain a healthy en,ironment in human settlements by pro,idin+ open spaces, roads, alleys and side(al1s as may be deemed suitable to enhance the 5uality of life of the residents thereinD <3E@EA;, such open spaces, roads, alleys and side(al1s in residential subdi,isions are for public use and are, therefore, beyond the commerce of menD <3E@EA;, pursuant to Presidential 2ecree No. "#E at least thirty per cent BE%WC of the total area of a subdi,ision must be reser,ed, de,eloped and maintained as open space for par1s and recreational areas, the cost of (hich (ill ultimately be borne by the lot buyers (hich thereby increase the ac5uisition price of subdi,ision lots beyond the reach of the common massD <3E@EA;, thirty percent BE%WC re5uired open space can be reduced to a le,el that (ill ma1e the subdi,ision industry ,iable and the price of residential lots (ithin the means of the lo( income +roup at the same time preser,e the en,ironmental and ecolo+ical balance throu+h rational control of land use and proper desi+n of space and facilitiesD <3E@EA;, pursuant to Presidential 2ecree No. #, +o,ernment efforts in housin+, includin+ resources, functions and acti,ities to maAimi/e results ha,e been concentrated into one sin+le a+ency, namely, the National 3ousin+ AuthorityD NO<, '3E@E7O@E, I, 7E@2INAN2 E. -A@CO;, President of the Philippines, by ,irtue of the po(ers ,ested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree: ;EC'ION !. 7or purposes of this 2ecree, the term Uopen spaceT shall mean an area reser,ed eAclusi,ely for par1s, play+rounds, recreational uses, schools, roads, places of (orship, hospitals, health centers, baran+ay centers and other similar facilities and amenities. ;EC'ION 2. ;ection E! of Presidential 2ecree No. "# is hereby amended to read as follo(s: U;ection E!. @oads, Alleys, ;ide(al1s and Open ;paces 8 'he o(ner as de,eloper of a subdi,ision shall pro,ide ade5uate roads, alleys and side(al1s. 7or subdi,ision pro0ects one B!C hectare or more, the o(ner or de,eloper shall reser,e thirty per cent BE%WC of the +ross area for open space. ;uch open space shall ha,e the follo(in+ standards allocated eAclusi,ely for par1s, play+rounds and recreational use: a. "W of +ross area for hi+h density or social housin+ BFF to !%% family lots per +ross hectareC. b. W of +ross area for medium4density or economic housin+ B2! to F# family lots per +ross hectareC. c. E.#W of +ross area for lo(4density or open mar1et housin+ B2% family lots and belo( per +ross hectareC. 'hese areas reser,ed for par1s, play+rounds and recreational use shall be non4alienable public lands, and non4buildable. 'he plans of the subdi,ision pro0ect shall include tree plantin+ on such parts of the subdi,ision as may be desi+nated by the Authority. 9pon their completion certified to by the Authority, the roads, alleys, side(al1s and play+rounds shall be donated by the o(ner or de,eloper to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local +o,ernments to accept pro,ided, ho(e,er, that the par1s and play+rounds may be donated to the 3omeo(ners Association of the pro0ect (ith the consent of the city or municipality concerned. No portion of the par1s and play+rounds donated thereafter shall be con,erted to any other purpose or purposes.T ;EC'ION E. ;ections 2 and # of Presidential 2ecree No. "#E are hereby repealed and other la(s, decrees, eAecuti,e orders, institutions, rules and re+ulations or parts thereof inconsistent (ith these pro,isions are also repealed or amended accordin+ly. ;EC'ION 6. 'his 2ecree shall ta1e effect immediately.V Pursuant to the (ordin+ of ;ec. E! of P.2. "# as abo,e amended by the afore5uoted P.2. No. !2!F, pri,ate respondent is under le+al obli+ation to donate the open space eAclusi,ely allocated for par1s, play+rounds and recreational use to the petitioner. 'his can be clearly established by referrin+ to the ori+inal pro,ision of ;ec. E! of P.2. "#, (hich reads as follo(s: S;EC'ION E!. 2onation of roads and open spaces to local +o,ernment. 8 'he re+istered o(ner or de,eloper of the subdi,ision or condominium pro0ect, upon completion of the de,elopment of said pro0ect may, at his option, con,ey by (ay of donation the roads and open spaces found (ithin the pro0ect to the city or municipality (herein the pro0ect is located. 9pon acceptance of the donation by the city or municipality concerned, no portion of the area donated shall thereafter be con,erted to any other purpose or purposes unless after hearin+, the proposed con,ersion is appro,ed by the Authority.V BItalics suppliedC It (ill be noted that under the afore5uoted ori+inal pro,ision, it (as optional on the part of the o(ner or de,eloper to donate the roads and open spaces found (ithin the pro0ect to the city or municipality (here the pro0ect is located. Else(ise stated, there (as no le+al obli+ation to ma1e the donation. 3o(e,er, said ;ec. E! as amended no( states in its last para+raph: S9pon their completion A A A, the roads, alleys, side(al1s and play+rounds shall be donated by the o(ner or de,eloper to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local +o,ernment to acceptD pro,ided, ho(e,er, that the par1s and play+rounds may be donated to the 3omeo(ners Association of the pro0ect (ith the consent of the city or municipality concerned. A A A.V It is clear from the afore5uoted amendment that it is no lon+er optional on the part of the subdi,ision o(nerNde,eloper to donate the open space for par1s and play+roundsD rather there is no( a le+al obli+ation to donate the same. Althou+h there is a pro,iso that the donation of the par1s and play+rounds may be made to the homeo(ners association of the pro0ect (ith the consent of the city of municipality concerned, nonetheless, the o(nerNde,eloper is still obli+ated under the la( to donate. ;uch option does not chan+e the mandatory character of the pro,ision. 'he donation has to be made re+ardless of (hich donee is pic1ed by the o(nerNde,eloper. 'he consent re5uirement before the same can be donated to the homeo(nersT association emphasi/es this point. ;econd Issue: Percenta+e of Area for Par1s and Play+rounds Petitioners contend that the E.#W to "W allotted by ;ec. E! for par1s, play+rounds and recreational uses should be based on the +ross area of the entire subdi,ision, and not merely on the area of the open space alone, as contended by pri,ate respondent and as decided by the respondent Court.J!%K 'he petitioners are correct. 'he lan+ua+e of ;ection E! of P.2. "# as amended by ;ection 2 of P.2. !2!F is (antin+ in clarity and eAactitude, but it can be easily inferred that the phrase S+ross areaV refers to the entire subdi,ision area. 'he said phrase (as used four times in the same section in t(o sentences, the first of (hich reads: SA A A 7or subdi,ision pro0ects one B!C hectare or more, the o(ner or de,eloper shall reser,e thirty per cent BE%WC of the +ross area for open space. A A A.V 3ere, the phrase SE%W of the +ross areaV refers to the total area of the subdi,ision, not of the open space. Other(ise, the definition of Sopen spaceV (ould be circular. 'hus, lo+ic dictates that the same basis be applied in the succeedin+ instances (here the phrase Sopen spaceV is used, i.e., S"W of +ross area . . . W of +ross area . . . E.#W of +ross area . . .V -oreo,er, (e a+ree (ith petitioners that construin+ the E.#W to "W as applyin+ to the totality of the open space (ould result in far too small an area bein+ de,oted for par1s, play+rounds, etc., thus renderin+ meanin+less and defeatin+ the purpose of the statute. 'his becomes clear (hen ,ie(ed in the li+ht of the ori+inal re5uirement of P.2. "#E BS@e5uirin+ the Plantin+ of 'rees in Certain Places, etc.VC, ;ection 2 of (hich reads: S;ec. 2. E,ery o(ner of land subdi,ided into residentialNcommercialNindustrial lots after the effecti,ity of this 2ecree shall reser,e, de,elop and maintain not less than thirty percent BE%WC of the total area of the subdi,ision, eAclusi,e of roads, ser,ice streets and alleys, as open space for par1s and recreational areas. No plan for a subdi,ision shall be appro,ed by the )and @e+istration Commission or any office or a+ency of the +o,ernment unless at least thirty percent BE%WC of the total area of the subdi,ision, eAclusi,e of roads, ser,ice streets and alleys, is reser,ed as open space for par1s and recreational areas A A A.V 'o our mind, it is clear that P.2. !2!F (as an attempt to achie,e a happy compromise and a realistic balance bet(een the imperati,es of en,ironmental plannin+ and the need to maintain economic feasibility in subdi,ision and housin+ de,elopment, by reducin+ the re5uired area for par1s, play+rounds and recreational uses from thirty percent BE%WC to only E.#W 4 "W of the entire area of the subdi,ision. 'hird Issue: Imposition of Conditions in 2onation of Open ;pace Petitioners ar+ue that since the pri,ate respondent is re5uired by la( to donate the par1s and play+rounds, it has no ri+ht to impose the condition in the Amended 2eed of 2onation that Sthe properties donated shall be de,oted and utili/ed solely for the site of the An+eles City ;ports Center.V It cannot prescribe any condition as to the use of the area donated because the use of the open spaces is already +o,erned by P.2. !2!F. In other (ords, the donation should be absolute. Conse5uently, the conditions in the amended deed (hich (ere alle+edly ,iolated are deemed not (ritten. ;uch bein+ the case, petitioners cannot be considered to ha,e committed any ,iolation of the terms and conditions of the said amended deed, as the donation is deemed unconditional, and it follo(s that there is no basis for re,ocation of the donation. 3o(e,er, the +eneral la( on donations does not prohibit the imposition of conditions on a donation so lon+ as the conditions are not ille+al or impossible.J!!K In re+ard to donations of open spaces, P.2. !2!F itself re5uires amon+ other thin+s that the recreational areas to be donated be based, as aforementioned, on a percenta+e BE.#W, W, or "WC of the total area of the subdi,ision dependin+ on (hether the subdi,ision is lo( 4, medium 4, or hi+h4density. It further declares that such open space de,oted to par1s, play+rounds and recreational areas are non4alienable public land and non4 buildable. 3o(e,er, there is no prohibition in either P.2. "# or P.2. !2!F a+ainst imposin+ conditions on such donation. <e hold that any condition may be imposed in the donation, so lon+ as the same is not contrary to la(, morals, +ood customs, public order or public policy. 'he contention of petitioners that the donation should be unconditional because it is mandatory has no basis in la(. P.2. !2!F does not pro,ide that the donation of the open space for par1s and play+rounds should be unconditional. 'o rule that it should be so is tantamount to unla(fully eApandin+ the pro,isions of the decree.J!2K In the case at bar, one of the conditions imposed in the Amended 2eed of 2onation is that the donee should build a sports compleA on the donated land. ;ince P.2. !2!F clearly re5uires that the E.#W to "W of the +ross area allotted for par1s and play+rounds is Snon4 buildable,V then the ob,ious 5uestion arises (hether or not such condition (as ,alidly imposed and is bindin+ on the donee. It is clear that the Snon4buildableV character applies only to the E.#W to "W area set by la(. If there is any eAcess land o,er and abo,e the E.#W to "W re5uired by the decree, (hich is also used or allocated for par1s, play+rounds and recreational purposes, it is ob,ious that such eAcess area is not co,ered by the non4buildability restriction. In the instant case, if there be an eAcess, then the donee (ould not be barred from de,elopin+ and operatin+ a sports compleA thereon, and the condition in the amended deed (ould then be considered ,alid and bindin+. 'o determine if the o,er #%,%%% s5uare meter area donated pursuant to the amended deed (ould yield an eAcess o,er the area re5uired by the decree, it is necessary to determine under (hich density cate+ory the 'imo+ Par1 subdi,ision falls. If the subdi,ision falls under the lo( density or open mar1et housin+ cate+ory, (ith 2% family lots or belo( per +ross hectare, the de,eloper (ill need to allot only E.#W of +ross area for par1s and play+rounds, and since the donated land constitutes Smore than fi,e B#C percent of the total land area of the subdi,ision,J!EK there (ould therefore be an eAcess of o,er !.#W of +ross area (hich (ould not be non4buildable. Petitioners, on the other hand, alle+ed Band pri,ate respondent did not contro,ertC that the subdi,ision in 5uestion is a Smedium4density or economic housin+V subdi,ision based on the si/es of the family lots donated in the amended deed,J!6K for (hich cate+ory the decree mandates that not less than W of +ross area be set aside. ;ince the donated land constitutes only a little more than #W of the +ross area of the subdi,ision, (hich is less than the area re5uired to be allocated for non4buildable open space, therefore there is no SeAcess landV to spea1 of. 'his then means that the condition to build a sports compleA on the donated land is contrary to la( and should be considered as not imposed. 7ourth Issue: In0unction ,s. Construction of the 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center Petitioners ar+ue that the court cannot en0oin the construction of the dru+ rehabilitation center because the decision of the trial court came only after the construction of the center (as completed and, based on 0urisprudence, there can be no in0unction of e,ents that ha,e already transpired.J!#K Pri,ate respondent, on the other hand, counters that the operation of the center is a continuin+ act (hich (ould clearly cause in0ury to pri,ate respondent, its clients, and residents of the subdi,ision, and thus, a proper sub0ect of in0unction.J!FK E5uity should mo,e in to (arrant the +rantin+ of the in0uncti,e relief if persistent repetition of the (ron+ is threatened.J!K In li+ht of ;ec. E! of P.2. "#, as amended, declarin+ the open space for par1s, play+rounds and recreational area as non4buildable, it appears indubitable that the construction and operation of a dru+ rehabilitation center on the land in 5uestion is a continuin+ ,iolation of the la( and thus should be en0oined. 7urthermore, the factual bac1+round of this case (arrants that this Court rule a+ainst petitioners on this issue. <e a+ree (ith and affirm the respondent CourtTs findin+ that petitioners committed acts moc1in+ the 0udicial system.J!$K SA A A <hen a (rit of preliminary in0unction (as sou+ht for by the appellee Jpri,ate respondentK to en0oin the appellants Jpetitioners hereinK from further continuin+ (ith the construction of the said center, the latter resisted and too1 refu+e under the pro,isions of Presidential 2ecree No. !$!$ B(hich prohibits (rits of preliminary in0unctionC to continue (ith the construction of the buildin+. =et, the appellants also presented UCity Council @esolution No. 22 (hich alle+edly repealed the pre,ious @esolution authori/in+ the City &o,ernment to construct a 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center on the donated property, by Uchan+in+ the purpose and usa+e of the 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center to ;ports 2e,elopment and =outh Center to ma1e it conform to the ;ports CompleA Pro0ect therein.T 9nder this @esolution No. 22, the appellants claimed that they ha,e abandoned all plans for the construction of the 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center. Nonetheless, (hen 0ud+ment (as finally rendered on 7ebruary !#, !"$", the appellants (ere 5uic1 to state that they ha,e not after all abandoned their plans for the center as they ha,e in fact inau+urated the same on April !#, !"$". In plain and simple terms, this act is a moc1ery of our 0udicial system perpetrated by the appellants. 7or them to ar+ue that the court cannot deal on their 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center is not only preposterous but also ridiculous. It is interestin+ to obser,e that under the appealed decision the appellants and their officers, employees and all other persons actin+ on their behalf (ere perpetually en0oined to cease and desist from constructin+ a 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center on the donated property. 9nder ;ection 6 of @ule E" of the @ules of Court, it is pro,ided that: S;ection 6 8 A 0ud+ment in an action for in0unction shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is ta1en or durin+ the pendency of an appeal.V Accordin+ly, a 0ud+ment restrainin+ a party from doin+ a certain act is enforceable and shall remain in full force and effect e,en pendin+ appeal. In the case at bar, the cease and desist order therefore still stands. AppellantsT persistence and continued construction and, subse5uent, operation of the 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center ,iolate the eApress terms of the (rit of in0unction la(fully issued by the lo(er court.V 'his Court finds no co+ent reason to re,erse the abo,e mentioned findin+s of the respondent court. 'he alle+ation of the petitioners that the construction of the center (as finished before the 0ud+ment of the trial court (as rendered deser,es scant consideration because it is self4ser,in+ and is completely unsupported by other e,idence. 'he fact remains that the trial court rendered 0ud+ment en0oinin+ the construction of the dru+ rehabilitation center, re,o1in+ the donation and orderin+ the return of the donated land. In spite of such in0unction, petitioners publicly flaunted their disre+ard thereof (ith the subse5uent inau+uration of the center on Au+ust !#, !"$". 'he operation of the center, after inau+uration, is e,en more censurable. 7ifth Issue: @e,ocation of a -andatory 2onation *ecause of Non4compliance <ith an Ille+al Condition 'he pri,ate respondent contends that the buildin+ of said dru+ rehabilitation center is ,iolati,e of the Amended 2eed of 2onation. 'herefore, under Article F6 of the Ne( Ci,il Code and stipulation no. $ of the amended deed, pri,ate respondent is empo(ered to re,o1e the donation (hen the donee has failed to comply (ith any of the conditions imposed in the deed. <e disa+ree. Article !6!2 of the Ci,il Code (hich pro,ides that: SIf the act in (hich the unla(ful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the follo(in+ rules shall be obser,ed: SB!C <hen the fault is on the part of both contractin+ parties, neither may reco,er (hat he has +i,en by ,irtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the otherTs underta1in+ comes into play here. *oth petitioners and pri,ate respondents are in ,iolation of P.2. "# as amended, for donatin+ and acceptin+ a donation of open space less than that re5uired by la(, and for a+reein+ to build and operate a sports compleA on the non4buildable open space so donatedD and petitioners, for constructin+ a dru+ rehabilitation center on the same non4buildable area. -oreo,er, since the condition to construct a sports compleA on the donated land has pre,iously been sho(n to be contrary to la(, therefore, stipulation No. $ of the amended deed cannot be implemented because B!C no ,alid stipulation of the amended deed had been breached, and B2C it is hi+hly improbable that the decree (ould ha,e allo(ed the return of the donated land for open space under any circumstance, considerin+ the non4 alienable character of such open space, in the li+ht of the second <hereas clause of P.2. !2!F (hich declares that SAAA such open spaces, roads, alleys and side(al1s in residential subdi,isions are for public use and are, therefore, beyond the commerce of men.V 7urther, as a matter of public policy, pri,ate respondent cannot be allo(ed to e,ade its statutory obli+ation to donate the re5uired open space throu+h the eApediency of in,o1in+ petitionersT breach of the aforesaid condition. It is a familiar principle that the courts (ill not aid either party to enforce an ille+al contract, but (ill lea,e them both (here they find them. Neither party can reco,er dama+es from the other arisin+ from the act contrary to la(, or plead the same as a cause of action or as a defense. Each must bear the conse5uences of his o(n acts.J!"K 'here is therefore no le+al basis (hatsoe,er to re,o1e the donation of the sub0ect open space and to return the donated land to pri,ate respondent. 'he donated land should remain (ith the donee as the la( clearly intended such open spaces to be perpetually part of the public domain, non4alienable and permanently de,oted to public use as such par1s, play+rounds or recreation areas. @emo,alN2emolition of 2ru+ @ehabilitation Center Inasmuch as the construction and operation of the dru+ rehabilitation center has been established to be contrary to la(, the said center should be remo,ed or demolished. At this 0uncture, (e hasten to add that this Court is and has al(ays been four4s5uare behind the +o,ernmentTs efforts to eradicate the dru+ scour+e in this country. *ut the end ne,er 0ustifies the means, and ho(e,er laudable the purpose of the construction in 5uestion, this Court cannot and (ill not countenance an outri+ht and continuin+ ,iolation of the la(s of the land, especially (hen committed by public officials. In theory, the cost of such demolition, and the reimbursement of the public funds eApended in the construction thereof, should be borne by the officials of the City of An+eles (ho ordered and directed such construction. 'his Court has time and a+ain ruled that public officials are not immune from dama+es in their personal capacities arisin+ from acts done in bad faith. Other(ise stated, a public official may be liable in his personal capacity for (hate,er dama+e he may ha,e caused by his act done (ith malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or 0urisdiction.J2%K In the instant case, the public officials concerned deliberately ,iolated the la( and persisted in their ,iolations, +oin+ so far as attemptin+ to decei,e the courts by their pretended chan+e of purpose and usa+e for the center, and Sma1in+ a moc1ery of the 0udicial system.V Indisputably, said public officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and 0urisdiction and (ith e,ident bad faith. 3o(e,er, as noted by the trial court,J2!K the petitioners mayor and members of the ;an++unian+ Panlun+sod of An+eles City (ere sued only in their official capacities, hence, they could not be held personally liable (ithout first +i,in+ them their day in court. Pre,ailin+ 0urisprudenceJ22K holdin+ that public officials are personally liable for dama+es arisin+ from ille+al acts done in bad faith are premised on said officials ha,in+ been sued both in their official and personal capacities. After due consideration of the circumstances, (e belie,e that the fairest and most e5uitable solution is to ha,e the City of An+eles, donee of the sub0ect open space and, ostensibly, the main beneficiary of the construction and operation of the proposed dru+ rehabilitation center, underta1e the demolition and remo,al of said center, and if feasible, reco,er the cost thereof from the city officials concerned. <3E@E7O@E, the assailed 2ecision of the Court of Appeals is hereby -O2I7IE2 as follo(s: B!C Petitioners are hereby ENJOINE2 perpetually from operatin+ the dru+ rehabilitation center or any other such facility on the donated open space. B2C Petitioner City of An+eles is O@2E@E2 to underta1e the demolition and remo,al of said dru+ rehabilitation center (ithin a period of three BEC months from finality of this 2ecision, and thereafter, to de,ote the said open space for public use as a par1, play+round or other recreational use. BEC 'he Amended 2eed of 2onation dated No,ember 2F, !"$6 is hereby declared ,alid and subsistin+, eAcept that the stipulations or conditions therein concernin+ the construction of the ;ports Center or CompleA are hereby declared ,oid and as if not imposed, and therefore of no force and effect. No costs. ;O O@2E@E2. G.R. No. L-22282 !ar,4 16, 1981 O+!)N/O G. RA!A, "#$%$%on#r, &'. CO)RT O A**EAL+
A)A-PA=, J.: 2urin+ the incumbency of @ene Espina as pro,incial +o,ernor of Cebu, Osmundo &. @ama as ,ice4+o,ernor and Pablo P. &arcia, @eynaldo -. -endiola and :alerians ;. Carillo as members of the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an, said officials adopted @esolution No. ""% (hich appropriated funds .for the maintenance and repair of pro,incial roads and brid+es and for the operation and maintenance of the office of the pro,incial en+ineer and for other purposes.. B)466#"!, @ollo, pp. E64EC. In said resolution, the pro,incial +o,ernment of Cebu under the aforementioned officials, declared its policy .to mechani/e the maintenance and repair of all roads and brid+es of the pro,ince Bincludin+ pro,incial roads and brid+es recei,in+ national aid .JJ.C, to economi/e in the eApenditure of its @oad and *rid+e 7und for the maintenance and repair of pro,incial roads and brid+es recei,in+ national aid .JJ. and to adopt a more comprehensi,e, systematic, efficient, pro+ressi,e and orderly operation and maintenance of the Office of the Pro,incial En+ineer.. 'o implement said policy, the pro,incial board resol,ed to abolish around thirty positions H the salaries of (hich (ere paid from the .JJ. @oad and *rid+e 7und thus doin+ a(ay (ith the caminero Bpic14sho,el4(heelbarro(C system Conse5uently around 2%% employees of the pro,ince (ere eased out of their respecti,e 0obs and, to implement the mechani/ation pro+ram in the maintenance of roads and brid+es, the pro,incial +o,ernment purchased hea,y e5uipment (orth P6,%%%,%%%.%%. 3o(e,er, contrary to its declared policy to economi/e the pro,incial administration later on hired around one thousand ne( employees, reno,ated the office of the pro,incial en+ineer and pro,ided the latter (ith a -ercedes4*en/ car B2ecision in CA4&.@. No. 6"E2$4@, )466#"!, @ollo, p. EC. A++rie,ed by these turn of e,ents, the employees (hose positions (ere abolished filed separate petitions for mandamus, dama+es and attorneys fees aimed at the annulment of @esolution No. ""%, their reinstatement and the reco,ery of dama+es 'he aforementioned pro,incial officials (ho, to+ether (ith the pro,incial auditor, pro,incial treasurer, pro,incial en+ineer and the pro,ince of Cebu, (ere named respondents in said action, (ere sued .both in their official and personal. capacities as a result of their alle+ed .un0ust, oppressi,e, ille+al and malicious> acts BPetition, @ecord in Ci,il Case No. @4 !%%6, p. EC. In Ci,il Case No. @4!%%6, the Court of 7irst Instance of Cebu declared @esolution No. ""% nun and ,oid and ordered the respondent officials to re4create the positions abolished, to pro,ide funds therefore, to reinstate the #F petitioners headed by Jose Abala, and to pay them bac1 salaries. 7or .lac1 of le+al and factual basis,. no dama+es (ere a(arded to petitioners and no pronouncement as to attorney>s fees (ere made as the petitioners had a+reed to pay their la(yers E%W of (hate,er amount they (ould recei,e as bac1 salaries B)466#"!, @ollo, pp. EE4E6C. All the parties appealed to the Court of Appeals BCA4&.@. No. 6"E2$4@C. E,entually, said appellate court, throu+h its 7irst 2i,ision, affirmed the lo(er court>s decision (ith the modification that respondents (ere ordered to pay 0ointly and se,erally in their .indi,idual and personal capacity. P!,%%%.%% moral dama+es to each of the petitioners considerin+ that the case in,ol,ed a 5uasi4delict B)466#"! @ollo, p. #6C. 7rom that decision, Osmundo &. @ama, interposed an appeal> to this Court B&.@. No. )4 666$6C. Espina, &arcia,> -endiola and Carillo then filed their o(n petition for re,ie( B&.@. No. )466#"!C. *ut before Espina, et al. could file said petition, the pro,ince of Cebu and its ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an filed their o(n petition for re,ie( 5uestionin+ that portion of the appellate court>s decision (hich ordered the reinstatement (ith bac1 salaries of the dismissed employees. ;aid petition, (hich (as doc1eted as &.@. No. )4 66#2, (as dismissed by this Court for lac1 of merit in the resolution of October 2#, !"F. Entry of 0ud+ment (as made on No,ember 26, !"F. -ean(hile, dismissed employees 7roilan 7rondoso and Jeremias )una, (ho also had filed their o(n petition for mandamus in the Court of 7irst Instance of Cebu, ele,ated their case to the Court of Appeals BCA4&.@. No. ;P4%6F6"C. In its decision, the Court of Appeals> Ninth 2i,ision follo(ed the rulin+ of its 7irst 2i,ision in CA4&. @. No. 6$E2$4 @, held that the (ron+ committed by the respondent Public officials (as a 5uasi4delict and ordered the reinstatement (ith bac1 salaries of 7rondoso and )una and the payment in solidum by respondent public officials of P!,%%%.%% each to 7rondoso and )una as moral dama+es plus P!,%%%.%% as attorney>s fees. <ith the eAception of @ama, the respondent public officials appealed to the Court B&.@. No. )466$62C. ;ubse5uently, the Cebu Assistant Pro,incial Attorney, representin+ the Pro,ince of Cebu and its ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an, also appealed to this Court from that decision B&.@. No. )4 66$"6C. On -arch 2$, !", this Court resol,ed to consolidate &.@. Nos. )4 666$6, )466$62, )4 66#"! and )466$"6 considerin+ that said cases in,ol,e the same issues and factual bac1+round B)66#"!, @ollo, p. E66C. 'hereafter, 7rondoso and )una filed a motion to dismiss )466$"6 and )466$62. 'hey alle+ed that as the petition in )66#2 had been dismissed on October 2#, !"FD said t(o cases should li1e(ise be dismissed because they, to+ether (ith the pri,ate respondents in )466#2 (ho, li1e them, (ere also permanent appointees to their respecti,e positions, .(ere separated from the ser,ice on the same date by the same petitioners. )466$"6 @ollo, p. !6%C and therefore, the petitions in )466$"6 and )466$62 (ere barred by the rule of stare decision 'he motion to dismiss, ho(e,er, (as noted in the resolution of 7ebruary !, !"$, it appearin+ that said t(o cases had already been submitted for decision B)466$"6 @ollo, p. !6$D )466$62 @ollo, p. !E"C. 7rondoso and )una filed another motion to dismiss )466$"6 but after the petitioners had filed their comment thereon, said motion to dismiss (as also noted in the resolution of 7ebruary 22, !"$! B)466$"6 @ollo, p. !$FC. <e find, ho(e,er, that 7rondoso>s and )una>s contention that )466$"6 should be dismissed is meritorious. 'he issues raised in )466$"6 and )4 66#2 are the same. In fact, the prayer in the petition in )466$"6 is ,irtually a ,erbatim reiteration of that in )466#2. 'he alle+ation of petitioner pro,ince of Cebu and its ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an that the 5uestion of 0urisdiction (as not raised in )466#2 B)466$"6 @ollo, p. !#%C cannot successfully sa,e )466$"6 from dismissal. In their petition, the pro,ince of Cebu and its ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an merely ar+ued that the Court of Appeals did not ac5uire 0urisdiction o,er the case, considerin+ that 7rondoso and )una>s appeal (as perfected after the eApiration of the re+lementary period and that their brief (as filed one month too late. 3o(e,er, the trend of the rulin+s of this Court in matters pertainin+ to the timeliness of the perfection of an appeal is to afford e,ery party4liti+ant amplest opportunity to present their case .for the proper and 0ust determination of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.. B@odri+ue/ ,s. Court of Appeals, )4E#22, No,ember 2$, !"#, F$ ;C@A 2F2C. Applyin+ the abo,e rulin+ to this case, the Court of Appeals may not, therefore, be faulted for assumin+ 0urisdiction o,er the appeal of 7rondoso and )una. 3ence, (ith respect to )466$"6, this Court is bound by the dismissal of )4 66#2 and so )466$"6 should li1e(ise be dismissed, as it is hereby dismissed. Proceedin+ no( to resol,e the issue, common to )4666$6, )466#"! and )466$62, (hich is (hether or not Espina, @ama, &arcia, -endiola and Carillo are personally liable for dama+es for adoptin+ a resolution (hich abolished positions to the detriment of the occupants thereof, this Court has held that, at least, in principle, a public officer by ,irtue of his office alone, is not immune from dama+es in his personal capacity arisin+ from ille+al acts done in bad faith. A different rule (ould sanction the use of public office as a tool of oppression B'abuena ,s. Court of Appeals, )4!F2"%, October E!, !"F!, E ;C@A 6!EC. 'hus, in Correa ,s. C7I of *ulacan, )46F%"F, July E%, !"", "2 ;C@A E!2, <e held personally liable a mayor (ho ille+ally dismissed policemen e,en if he had relin5uished his position. 'herein, <e held that: A public officer (ho commits a tort or other (ron+ful act, done in eAcess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected by office and is personally liable therefor li1e any pri,ate indi,idual BPalma ,s. &raciano, "" Phil. 2, 6D Carreon ,s. Pro,ince of Pampan+a, "" Phil. $%$C. 'his principle of personal liability has been applied to cases (here a public officer remo,es another officer or dischar+es an employee (ron+fully, the reported cases sayin+ that by reason of non4compliance (ith the re5uirements of la( in respect to remo,al from office, the officials (ere actin+ outside of their official authority B;tiles ,s. )o(ell 2EE -ass. !6, !2E NE F!#, 6 A)@ !EF#, cited in FE Am. Jur. 2d. %C. <e hold that the petitioners in the instant three cases are personally liable for dama+es because of their precipitate dismissal of pro,incial employees throu+h an ostensibly le+al means. 'he Court of Appeals, (hose factual findin+s are bindin+ on this Court, found that the pro,incial employees concerned (ere .eased out because of their party affiliation.. i.e., they belon+ed to the )iberal Party (hose presidential candidate then (as ;er+io Osmena Jr. BCA 2ecision in &.@. No. 6"E2$4@, p. F, )466#"!, @ollo, p. E$C. ;uch act of the petitioners reflected their malicious intent to do a(ay (ith the follo(ers of the ri,al political party so as to accommodate their o(n prote+es (ho, it turned out, e,en outnumbered the dismissed employees. Indeed, municipal officers are liable for dama+es if they act maliciously or (antonly and if the (or1 (hich they perform is done rather to in0ure an indi,idual than to dischar+e a public duty B#F Am. Jur. 2d EE6, citin+ =early :. 7in1 6E Pa 2!2C. As (e ha,e held in :da de )ai+ ,s. Court of Appeals, )42F$$2, April #, !"$, $2 ;C@A 2"6, E%4E%$, a public officer is ci,illy liable for failure to obser,e honesty and +ood faith in the performance of their duties as public officers or for (ilfully or ne+li+ently causin+ dama+e to another BArticle 2%, Ci,il CodeC or for (ilfully causin+ loss or in0ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, +ood customs andNor public policy BArticle 2!, Ne( Ci,il CodeC. Neither can petitioners shield themsel,es from liability by in,o1in+ the rulin+ in the cases of Carino ,s. A+ricultural Credit and Cooperati,e 7inancin+ Administration )42E"FF, -ay 22, !"F", 2$ ;C@A 2F$. In those cases, the errin+ public officials (ere sued in their official capacities (hereas in the instant cases, petitioners (ere specifically sued in their personal capacities. 7or their part, the dismissed employees are entitled to dama+es because they ha,e suffered a special and peculiar in0ury from the (ron+ful act of (hich they complain -echem, A 'reatise on the )a( of Public Offices and Officers, p. E"!C. It is an undeniable fact that the dismissed employees (ho (ere holdin+ such positions as foremen, (atchmen and dri,ers, suffered the uncertainties of the unemployed (hen they (ere pluc1ed out of their positions. 'hat not all of them testified as to the eAtent of dama+es they sustained on account of their separation from their +o,ernment 0obs, cannot be used as a defense by the petitioners. ;uffice it to state that considerin+ the positions they (ere holdin+, the dismissed employees concerned belon+ to a lo(4salaried +roup, (ho, if depri,ed of (a+es (ould +enerally incur considerable economic hardships. Justice demands that they be recompensed for the predicament they (ere placed in, apart from the bac1 salaries (hich they are entitled to as a matter of ri+ht. <e are inclined to a+ree that the amount of P!,%%%.%% dama+es +ranted to each of them by the Court of Appeals (as fiAed by that court 0udiciously and is a reasonable sum BArticle 22!F, Ci,il CodeC. Petitioner @ama>s protestations that (hen he e,entually became the +o,ernor of Cebu, he reinstated most of the dismissed employees throu+h pro,incial board @esolution No. E"2 B)4666$6 @ollo, p. !FC cannot erase the fact that he had a hand in the adoption of @esolution No. ""%. 3is subse5uent bene,olent act cannot sufficiently ma1e up for the dama+e suffered by the dismissed employees durin+ their period of unemployment. Apropos the practice of ,ictorious politicians to remo,e +o,ernment employees (ho did not support them in their campai+n for office, this Court has said: .'here are alto+ether too many cases of this nature, (herein local electi,e officials, upon assumption to office, (ield their ne(4found po(er indiscriminately by replacin+ employees (ith their o(n prote+es re+ardless of the la(s and re+ulations +o,ernin+ the ci,il ser,ice. :ictory at the polls should not be ta1en as authority for the commission of such ille+al acts.. BNemen/o ,s. ;abillano, )42%", ;eptember , !"F$, 2# ;C@A !.C <3E@E7O@E, in )466$"6, the petition for re,ie( on certiorari is hereby dismissed for lac1 of merit. In )4666$6, )466#"! and )466$62, the decision of the 7irst and Ninth 2i,isions of the Court of Appeals are hereby A77I@-E2 (ith costs a+ainst the petitioners. ;O O@2E@E2. 7ernan, &utierre/, Jr., Paras, Padilla, *idin and Cortes, JJ., concur. G.R. No. 101916#8ruary 20, 1991 *ERCI6AL !O/AY, 3OTICO !O/AY @(#,#a'#(A an( LEONORA !O/AY, "#$%$%on#r', &'. CO)RT O A**EAL+, J)/GE E6ANGELINE +. Y)I*CO O BRANC5 6, REGIONAL TRIAL CO)RT, AG)+AN /EL +)R AN/ !)NICI*ALITY O B)NABAN, r#'"on(#n$'.
RO!ERO, J.C 'he main issue presented in this case is (hether a municipality may eApropriate pri,ate property by ,irtue of a municipal resolution (hich (as disappro,ed by the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an. Petitioner see1s the re,ersal of the Court of Appeals decision and resolution, promul+ated on July !#, !""2 and October 22, !""2 respecti,ely, and a declaration that -unicipal @esolution No. 6E4$" of the *una(an ;an++unian+ *ayan is null and ,oid. On July 2E, !"$", the ;an++unian+ *ayan of the -unicipality of *una(an in A+usan del ;ur passed @esolution No. 6E4$", .Authori/in+ the -unicipal -ayor to Initiate the Petition for EApropriation of a One B!C 3ectare Portion of )ot No. F!E$4Pls46 Alon+ the National 3i+h(ay O(ned by Perci,al -oday for the ;ite of *una(an 7armers Center and Other &o,ernment ;ports 7acilities.. 2 In due time, @esolution No. 6E4$" (as appro,ed by then -unicipal -ayor Anuncio C. *ustillo and transmitted to the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an for its appro,al. On ;eptember !!, !"$", the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an disappro,ed said @esolution and returned it (ith the comment that .eApropriation is unnecessary considerin+ that there are still a,ailable lots in *una(an for the establishment of the +o,ernment center.. E 'he -unicipality of *una(an, herein public respondent, subse5uently filed a petition for Eminent 2omain a+ainst petitioner Perci,al -oday before the @e+ional 'rial Court at Prosperidad, A+usan del ;ur. 6 'he complaint (as later amended to include the re+istered o(ners, Perci,al -oday>s parents, Gotico and )eonora -oday, as party defendants. On -arch F, !""!, public respondent municipality filed a -otion to 'a1e or Enter 9pon the Possession of ;ub0ect -atter of 'his Case statin+ that it had already deposited (ith the municipal treasurer the necessary amount in accordance (ith ;ection 2, @ule F of the @e,ised @ules of Court and that it (ould be in the +o,ernment>s best interest for public respondent to be allo(ed to ta1e possession of the property. 2espite petitioners> opposition and after a hearin+ on the merits, the @e+ional 'rial Court +ranted respondent municipality>s motion to ta1e possession of the land. 'he lo(er court held that the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an>s failure to declare the resolution in,alid lea,es it effecti,e. It added that the duty of the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an is merely to re,ie( the ordinances and resolutions passed by the ;an++unian+ *ayan under ;ection 2%$ B!C of *.P. *l+. EE, old )ocal &o,ernment Code and that the eAercise of eminent domain is not one of the t(o acts enumerated in ;ection !" thereof re5uirin+ the appro,al of the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an. # 'he dispositi,e portion of the lo(er court>s Order dated July 2, !""! reads: <3E@E7O@E, it appearin+ that the amount of PFE2.E" had been deposited as per Official @eceipt No. #E"F6 on 2ecember !2, !"$" (hich this Court no( determines as the pro,isional ,alue of the land, the -otion to 'a1e or Enter 9pon the Possession of the Property filed by petitioner throu+h counsel is hereby &@AN'E2. 'he ;heriff of this Court is ordered to forth(ith place the plaintiff in possession of the property in,ol,ed. )et the hearin+ be set on Au+ust ", !""! at $:E% o>cloc1 in the mornin+ for the purpose of ascertainin+ the 0ust compensation or fair mar1et ,alue of the property sou+ht to be ta1en, (ith notice to all the parties concerned. ;O O@2E@E2. Petitioners> motion for reconsideration (as denied by the trial court on October E!, !""!. Petitioners ele,ated the case in a petition for certiorari alle+in+ +ra,e abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, but the same (as dismissed by respondent appellate court on July !#, !""2. 'he Court of Appeals held that the public purpose for the eApropriation is clear from @esolution No. 6E4$" and that since the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an of A+usan del ;ur did not declare @esolution No. 6E4$" in,alid, eApropriation of petitioners> property could proceed. @espondent appellate court also denied petitioners> motion for reconsideration on October 22, !""2. $ -ean(hile, the -unicipality of *una(an had erected three buildin+s on the sub0ect property: the Association of *aran+ay Councils BA*CC 3all, the -unicipal -otorpool, both (ooden structures, and the *una(an -unicipal &ymnasium, (hich is made of concrete. In the instant petition for re,ie( filed on No,ember 2E, !""2, petitioner see1s the re,ersal of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals and a declaration that @esolution No. 6E4$" of the -unicipality of *una(an is null and ,oid. On 2ecember $, !""E, the Court issued a temporary restrainin+ order en0oinin+ and restrainin+ public respondent Jud+e E,an+eline =uipco from enforcin+ her July 2, !""! Order and respondent municipality from usin+ and occupyin+ all the buildin+s constructed and from further constructin+ any buildin+ on the land sub0ect of this petition. " Actin+ on petitioners> Omnibus -otion for Enforcement of @estrainin+ Order and for Contempt, the Court issued a @esolution on -arch !#, !""#, citin+ incumbent municipal mayor Anuncio C. *ustillo for contempt, orderin+ him to pay the fine and to demolish the .bloc1tiendas. (hich (ere built in ,iolation of the restrainin+ order. !% 7ormer -ayor Anuncio C. *ustillo paid the fine and manifested that he lost in the -ay $, !""# election. !! 'he incumbent -ayor )eonardo *arrios, filed a -anifestation, -otion to @esol,e .9r+ent -otion for Immediate 2issolution of the 'emporary @estrainin+ Order. and -emorandum on June !!, !""F for the -unicipality of *una(an. !2 Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in upholdin+ the le+ality of the condemnation proceedin+s initiated by the municipality. Accordin+ to petitioners, the eApropriation (as politically moti,ated and @esolution No. 6E4$" (as correctly disappro,ed by the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an, there bein+ other municipal properties a,ailable for the purpose. Petitioners also pray that the former -ayor Anuncio C. *ustillo be ordered to pay dama+es for insistin+ on the enforcement of a ,oid municipal resolution. 'he Court of Appeals declared that the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an>s reason for disappro,in+ the resolution .could be baseless, because it failed to point out (hich and (here are those a,ailable lots.>. @espondent court also concluded that since the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an did not declare the municipal board>s resolution as in,alid, eApropriation of petitioners> property could proceed. 'he Court finds no merit in the petition and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. Eminent domain, the po(er (hich the -unicipality of *una(an eAercised in the instant case, is a fundamental ;tate po(er that is inseparable from so,erei+nty. !6 It is +o,ernment>s ri+ht to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the ;tate, pri,ate property for public use or purpose. !# Inherently possessed by the national le+islature, the po(er of eminent domain may be ,alidly dele+ated to local +o,ernments, other public entities and public utilities. !F 7or the ta1in+ of pri,ate property by the +o,ernment to be ,alid, the ta1in+ must be for public use and there must be 0ust compensation. ! 'he -unicipality of *una(an>s po(er to eAercise the ri+ht of eminent domain is not disputed as it is eApressly pro,ided for in *atas Pambansa *l+. EE, the local &o,ernment Code !$ in force at the time eApropriation proceedin+s (ere initiated. ;ection " of said la( states: ;ec. ". Eminent 2omain. 8 A local +o,ernment unit may, throu+h its head and actin+ pursuant to a resolution of its san++unian, eAercise the ri+ht of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedin+s for public use or purpose. <hat petitioners 5uestion is the lac1 of authority of the municipality to eAercise this ri+ht since the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an disappro,ed @esolution No. 6E4$". ;ection !#E of *.P. *l+. EE pro,ides: ;ec. !#E. ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an @e,ie(. 8 B!C <ithin thirty days after recei,in+ copies of appro,ed ordinances, resolutions and eAecuti,e orders promul+ated by the municipal mayor, the san++unian+ panlala(i+an shall eAamine the documents or transmit them to the pro,incial attorney, or if there be none, to the pro,incial fiscal, (ho shall eAamine them promptly and inform the san++unian+ panlala(i+an in (ritin+ of any defect or impropriety (hich he may disco,er therein and ma1e such comments or recommendations as shall appear to him proper. B2C If the san++unian+ panlala(i+an shall find that any municipal ordinance, resolution or eAecuti,e order is beyond the po(er conferred upon the san++unian+ bayan or the mayor, it shall declare such ordinance, resolution or eAecuti,e order in,alid in (hole or in part, enterin+ its actions upon the minutes and ad,isin+ the proper municipal authorities thereof. 'he effect of such an action shall be to annul the ordinance, resolution or eAecuti,e order in 5uestion in (hole or in part. 'he action of the san++unian+ panlala(i+an shall be final. AAA AAA AAA BEmphasis supplied.C 'he ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an>s disappro,al of -unicipal @esolution No. 6E4$" is an infirm action (hich does not render said resolution null and ,oid. 'he la(, as eApressed in ;ection !#E of *.P. *l+. EE, +rants the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an the po(er to declare a municipal resolution in,alid on the sole +round that it is beyond the po(er of the ;an++unian+ *ayan or the -ayor to issue. Althou+h pertainin+ to a similar pro,ision of la( but different factual milieu then obtainin+, the Court>s pronouncements in :ela/co ,. *las, !" (here (e cited si+nificant early 0urisprudence, are applicable to the case at bar. 'he only +round upon (hich a pro,incial board may declare any municipal resolution, ordinance, or order in,alid is (hen such resolution, ordinance, or order is .beyond the po(ers conferred upon the council or president ma1in+ the same.. Absolutely no other +round is reco+ni/ed by the la(. A strictly le+al 5uestion is before the pro,incial board in its consideration of a municipal resolution, ordinance, or order. 'he pro,incial Bboard>sC disappro,al of any resolution, ordinance, or order must be premised specifically upon the fact that such resolution, ordinance, or order is outside the scope of the le+al po(ers conferred by la(. If a pro,incial board passes these limits, it usurps the le+islati,e function of the municipal council or president. ;uch has been the consistent course of eAecuti,e authority. 2% 'hus, the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an (as (ithout the authority to disappro,e -unicipal @esolution No. 6E4$" for the -unicipality of *una(an clearly has the po(er to eAercise the ri+ht of eminent domain and its ;an++unian+ *ayan the capacity to promul+ate said resolution, pursuant to the earlier45uoted ;ection " of *.P. *l+. EE. Perforce, it follo(s that @esolution No. 6E4$" is ,alid and bindin+ and could be used as la(ful authority to petition for the condemnation of petitioners> property. As re+ards the accusation of political oppression, it is alle+ed that Perci,al -oday incurred the ire of then -ayor Anuncio C. *ustillo (hen he refused to support the latter>s candidacy for mayor in pre,ious elections. Petitioners claim that then incumbent -ayor C. *ustillo used the eApropriation to retaliate by eApropriatin+ their land e,en if there (ere other properties belon+in+ to the municipality and a,ailable for the purpose. ;pecifically, they alle+e that the municipality o(ns a ,acant se,en4hectare property ad0acent to petitioners> land, e,idenced by a s1etch plan. 2! 'he limitations on the po(er of eminent domain are that the use must be public, compensation must be made and due process of la( must be obser,ed. 22 'he ;upreme Court, ta1in+ co+ni/ance of such issues as the ade5uacy of compensation, necessity of the ta1in+ and the public use character or the purpose of the ta1in+, 2E has ruled that the necessity of eAercisin+ eminent domain must be +enuine and of a public character. 26 &o,ernment may not capriciously choose (hat pri,ate property should be ta1en. After a careful study of the records of the case, ho(e,er, (e find no e,identiary support for petitioners> alle+ations. 'he uncertified photocopy of the s1etch plan does not conclusi,ely pro,e that the municipality does o(n ,acant land ad0acent to petitioners> property suited to the purpose of the eApropriation. In the 5uestioned decision, respondent appellate court similarly held that the pleadin+s and documents on record ha,e not pointed out any of respondent municipality>s .other a,ailable properties a,ailable for the same purpose.. 2# 'he accusations of political reprisal are li1e(ise unsupported by competent e,idence. Conse5uently, the Court holds that petitioners> demand that the former municipal mayor be personally liable for dama+es is (ithout basis. <3E@E7O@E, the instant petition is hereby 2ENIE2. 'he 5uestioned 2ecision and @esolution of the Court of Appeals in the case of .Perci,al -oday.. et al. ,. -unicipality of *una(an, et al.. BCA &.@. ;P No. 2F!2C are A77I@-E2. 'he 'emporary @estrainin+ Order issued by the Court on 2ecember $, !""E is )I7'E2. ;O O@2E@E2. EN BANC >G.R. No. 121251. A"r%- 13, 1998? !AYOR ELI*E D. CON+TANTINO, "#$%$%on#r, &'. 5on. O!B)/+!AN ANIANO /E+IERTO, !ARGARITO *. GER6ACIO, JR., JAI!E L. !A/RI/ANO, *RI!ITI6IA L. E+*INO+A, RAAEL J. +)+ON, +R., *ABLO 6. OCTA6IO, LEO G. INGAY, BENJA!IN C. A+GA*O an( BILRE/ *. E+*INO+A, r#'"on(#n$'. / E C I + I O N NAR6A+A, C.J.C In the special ci,il action of certiorari at bar -ayor 7elipe ?. Constantino of -alun+on, ;aran+ani Pro,ince, see1s in,alidation of the @esolution of the Ombudsman dated October 22, !""F, findin+ him +uilty of +ra,e misconduct pre0udicial to the best interest of the ser,ice, andNor +ross ne+lect of duty, and on that account dismissin+ him from the ser,ice. On 7ebruary 22, !""F, the ;an++unian+ *ayan of -alun+on, ;aran+ani Pro,ince, adopted and issued @esolution No. 2!J!K (hich 44 after declarin+ in its S<hereasV clauses inter alia that 44 !C it (as the intention of the HH &o,ernment of -alun+on to SleaseNpurchase one B!C fleet of hea,y e5uipmentVJ2K composed of se,en BC specifically described unitsD 2C due to the failure of t(o public biddin+s, the -unicipal -ayor (ould be authori/ed Sto enter into a ne+otiated contract Bfor said leaseNpurchaseC HH in behalf of the -unicipal &o,ernment HH DV EC the lessorNseller should assure that the hea,y e5uipment is Sfree from defects in (or1manship (ithin the specified (arranty period under normal use,V (ith obli+ation to Srepair or replace any defecti,e parts free of char+e sub0ect to the terms and conditions stipulated in the contractDV 6C the contract .must be clear and eAplicit, acceptable to both parties. and be concurred by the ;an++unian+ *ayan of HH -alun+on HH before implementationD. and #C the hea,y e5uipment shall, before deli,ery, be inspected and tested by a special committee chosen by the -ayor 44 authori/ed -ayor Constatino Sto enter into a ne+otiated contract representin+ the -unicipality HH B(ithC any company dealin+ (ith hea,y e5uipment,V said contract to be Ssi+ned by P*AC members.V 'he resolution, ho(e,er, contained no parameters as to rate of rental, period of lease, purchase price. 'he ;an++unian+ *ayan -embers (ho ,oted for the resolution (ere : :ice4-ayor Primiti,a ). Espinosa, and Councilors @afael J. ;uson, ;r. BPresidin+ OfficerC, *en0amin -. &uilley, Nemesio P. )iray, Nonito :. Nune/, )eo &. In+ay, Cesar *. Nallus, Jr., *en0amin C. As+apo, and Jannette ;. Constatino. Accordin+ly, on 7ebruary 2$, !""F in 2a,ao City, -ayor Constantino entered into an a+reement (ith a firm called the Norlo,anian Corporation,JEK for the lease by the municipality from the latter of se,en BC units of hea,y e5uipment of the types specified in the aforesaid @esolution, to (it:J6K BaC one B!C unit payloaderD BbC one B!C unit +raderD BcC one B!C unit road rollerD BdC t(o B2C units siA4(heeler dump truc1sD and BeC t(o B2C units ten4(heeler dump truc1s. At the same time, and (ith the -ayorTs Sconforme,V the corporation eAecuted a deed of S9nderta1in+V bindin+ itself to con,ey o(nership of the hea,y e5uipment under lease Sunto the )essee at the end of the term of said a+reement after the )essee has faithfully complied (ith the terms and conditions thereof,V and to eAecute Sthe necessary documents to transfer the o(nership HH BthereofC.VJ#K 'he )ease A+reement (as a printed pre4prepared one, the names of the parties and the notarial ac1no(led+ment ha,in+ merely been typed in additionally. Nothin+ (as stated in the si+ned contract about the term of the lease or the amount of the rental. Neither did the second document, the S9nderta1in+,V set forth the term of the lease, the rental rate of the e5uipment, or the ,alue thereof. 2eli,ery of all the se,en BC pieces of hea,y e5uipment (as made to the municipality on -arch 6, !""F, at (hich time a document of S2eli,ery and AcceptanceVJFK (as eAecuted o,er the si+natures of -ayor Constantino and the President of the lessor company. 'he instrument contained: BaC a list of the e5uipment, BbC an a,erment that the S)E;;EEV Bthe to(n of -alun+onC had inspected and accepted the same (hich had Sbeen found to be in +ood condition in accordance (ith the terms and conditions of the )ease A+reement,V and BcC an attestation 44 readin+ SEM9IP-EN' IN;PEC'E2 *=V 44 si+ned by four B6C -unicipal ?a+a(ads: *an0amin -. &uilley, Nonito :. Nune/, Ceasar *. Nallos and Nemesio P. )iray, as (ell as by the -unicipal En+ineer and the -unicipal 'reasurer. 'hereafter, and on the stren+th of another resolution BNo. E$C Sunanimously appro,edV on April !$, !""F by the ;an++unian+ *ayan of -alun+on 44 Sre5uestin+ the 3onorable -unicipal -ayor, 7elipe ?. Constantino, to operate the ne(ly ac5uired hea,ily e5uipment of the -unicipality of -alun+on leasedNpurchased from the Norlo,anian CorporationVJK P the mayor directed that the hea,y e5uipment be operated and used in ,arious pro0ects. 'he ;an++unian+ *ayan -embers (ho ,oted for the resolution (ere: :ice4-ayor Primiti,a ). Espinosa, and Councilors @afael J. ;uson, ;r., *en0amin -. &uilley, Nemesio P. )iray, Pablo :. Octa,io, Nonito :. NuOe/, )eo &. In+ay, Cesar *. Nallos, Jr., *en0amin C. As+apo, and <ilfredo P. Espinosa, A*C. 3o(e,er, operation of the e5uipment came to a halt barely t(o months laterD and this, because of a third resolution BNo. 6C of the ;an++unian+ *ayan adopted on June F, !""F,J$K Sstoppin+ all forms of unauthori/ed paymentNeApenditures relati,e to the ille+ally ac5uired pool of hea,y e5uipment by the -unicipality of -alun+on, ;aran+ani Pro,ince.V 'he @esolution (as +rounded on the follo(in+ stated premises: !C a !""# @esolution Sadoptin+ Appropriation Ordinance No. !! appro,in+ &eneral *ud+et of !""FDV -PC @esolution No. 2 series of !""# in relation to ;* @esolution No. !"$, series of !""# Spro,ided the amount of '<O -I))ION '<O 39N2@E2 '3O9;AN2 PE;O; BP2,2%%,%%%%%C for the loan amorti/ation of the purchase of hea,y e5uipment for fi,e B#C yearsV but had Snot been reali+ned HH re4pro+rammed and appropriated for leaseDV and 2C the Spool of hea,y e5uipment HH ac5uired (as inefficient and inoperati,e per ocular inspection, in,esti+ation and sur,ey conducted by the Committee on Infrastructure of the ;an++unian+ *ayan of -alun+on and there is no authori/ed rental paymentNeApenditures and appro,ed bud+et by the ;an++unian+ *ayan intended for lease of such hea,y e5uipment.V 'he minutes of the ;an++unian+ *ayan of -alun+on of the ;ession of June F, !""F sho( that of the nine B"C ;an+unian members present, four B6C ,oted Sfor the passa+e of said resolution, namely Councilors Octa,io, Espinosa, As+apo and In+ay, and three abstainBed:C namely Councilor &uilley, Nollon, nune/ HHD BandC Councilor )iray HH B(asC not around durin+ the ,otation HH Bbein+C on pri,ile+e motion (hich (as reco+ni/ed by the ChairV BsicC. :ice4-ayor Primiti,a ). Espinosa, identified as SActin+ -ayor,V (as recorded as SA*;EN'VJ"K It appears that earlier 44 on April 2E, !""F, fi,e B#C days after -ayor Constantino (as re5uested by the ;an++unian+ *ayan to start usin+ the hea,y e5uipment as abo,e stated 44 there (ere filed (ith the 2eputy Ombudsman for -indanao in 2a,ao City,J!%K a S)etter4ComplaintVJ!!K and a SJoint Affida,it,VJ!2K accusin+ the -ayor and the President of the )essor company, Norberto )indon+,J!EK of a S:iolation of ;ection E JeK and J+K of @.A. No. E%!" other(ise 1no(n as the Anti4&raft and Corrupt Practices ActV 44 doc1eted as Case No. O-*4-IN4A2-4"F4%!" 44 and of S&ra,e -isconductD Conduct Pre0udicial to the Interest of the ;er,iceD and &ross Ne+lect of 2utyV 44 doc1eted as Case No. O-*4min4A2-4"F4%F%. 'he letter4complaint (as si+ned by :ice4-ayor Primiti,a ). Espinosa, and to it (as appended a CE@'I7ICA'ION si+ned by :ice4-ayor and three BEC of the ;an++unian+ *ayan -embers (ho, to+ether (ith the :ice4-ayor, had appro,ed the first t(o B2C @esolutions abo,e mentioned, namely: Councilors @afael 0. ;uson, ;r., )eo &. In+ay, and *en0amin C. A+aspo. '(o other councilors, <ilfredo P. Espinosa, Pablo :. Octa,io, (ho had appro,ed the @esolution of April !$, !""F P re5uestin+ -ayor Constantino to put into operation the hea,y e5uipment deli,ered by Norlo,anian Corporation P also si+ned the Certification. 'he Joint Affida,it alle+ed that: !C @esolution No. 2! authori/ed -ayor Constantino Sto purchase and ac5uire for the -unicipality of -alun+on hea,y e5uipments to be paid (ithin fi,e B#C years at the yearly amorti/ation of P2.2 million and for the o(nership thereof to be consolidated and ,ested upon the municipality at the end of fifth yearDV 2C the resolution also Spro,ided that the ;an++unian+ *ayan shall concur in the contract to purchase that shall be entered into HHDV EC contrary to the resolution, -ayor Constantino entered into Slease a+reement (ith the Norlo,anian CorporationV o,er specific hea,y e5uipment (hich stipulated a term of SsiA BFC years,V rental at the rate of P2#,!!!.!! per monthDV and S2%W &uaranty 2eposit of P!,$%,%%%.%%V to be made by the -unicipalityDV 6C the lease a+reement contained no SPurchase OptionV in fa,or of the -unicipality, and re5uired the property to be returned to the lessor at the end of the leaseD #C pursuant to the a+reement, the -unicipality had already paid to the Norlo,anian Corporation Sthe total sum of P2,!,%%."! for: aC 2%W &uaranty 2eposit P!,$%,%%%.%% bC @ental from -arch # 4 April #, !""F 2#,!!!.!! cC partial rental co,erin+ April # to -ay F, !""F !F2,$$$.$" <ithholdin+ 'aA XXX 22,"%".%% 'O'A) P2,!,%%."!D FC -ayor Constantino had thus entered into the a+reement (ithout authority and thereby Scaused and inflicted undue in0ury to the -unicipality HH.V 'he char+es (ere tra,ersed by 3is 3onor in a SCounter 4 Affida,itVJ!6K filed by him on re5uirement of the 2eputy Ombudsman.J!#K 3e asserted that: !C under authority of @esolution No.2!, he had indeed ne+otiated (ith Norberto )indon+ of the Norlo,anian Corporation for the lease and ultimate purchase of the sub0ect hea,y e5uipmentD 2C the a+reement finally reached (as BaC S'otal cost of e5uipment is P$,"%%,%%%.%%DV BbC Norlo,anian S(ill char+e interest at !$W per annum on a diminishin+ balance, o,er a F year pay4periodDV and BcC Son the first year, the monthly amorti/ation (ill be P2#,!!!.!! but startin+ on the second year the amorti/ation (ill decrease and HH pro+ressi,ely decrease e,ery yearDV EC a Committee created by the -ayor inspected and accepted the units and issued a certification attestin+ to the S(orthinessV thereof,J!FK after (hich )indon+ dre( up the Slease A+reementV on his companyTs Sstandard BprintedC form,V and an S9nderta1in+V to e,entually transfer o(nership of the e5uipment to the -unicipalityD 6C both instruments (ere si+ned not only by the -ayor and )indon+ but also by the -embers of the P*ACD #C on 7ebruary 2", !""F, the -ayor and )indon+ appeared before the ;an++unian+ *ayan and eAplained the terms of the a+reementsD present (ere all the -embers of the ;an+unian eAcept :ice4-ayor Primiti,a Espinosa and her spouse, Councilor <ilfredo EspinosaD FC the e5uipment (as deli,ered four B6C days after(ards after (hich it (as inspected by a representati,e of the Commission on Audit (ho found the same to be in +ood orderD C the -ayor subse5uently ordered the e5uipment to be put into operation in compliance (ith @esolution No. E$. On -ay E!, !""F, respondent 2eputy Ombudsman &er,acio handed do(n an Order placin+ -ayor Constantino under pre,enti,e suspension for siA BFC months (ithout pay effecti,e June !6, !""F. 'his order (as not enforced, ho(e,er, because en0oined by orders promul+ated by the @e+ional 'rial CourtJ!$K in ;pecial Ci,il Case No. "EF$ instituted by the -ayor. On July 22, !""F, -ayor Constantino and Norberto )indon+ filed a motion for the inhibition of 2eputy Ombudsman &er,acio, alle+in+ that by Sthe issuance of the UOrder of pre,enti,e ;uspensionT on -ay E!, !""F HH (ithout any due process of la( and in utter disre+ard of the pro,isions of ;ec. 2E of @A F%, the 3onorable 2eputy Ombudsman HH had clearly sho(n his pre0udice a+ainst respondent -ayor HH.VJ!"K 'he motion (as ho(e,er denied in an Order issued by &raft In,esti+ation Officer -arco Anacleto P. *uena on July 26, !""F.J2%K On July 2F, !""F, Constantino and )indon+ filed a SNotice of AppealV 44 as re+ards the re0ection of the motion for inhibitionJ2!K 44 and a S-otion to @eset 3earin+V Bafter the resolution of their appeal on the issue of recusationC.J22K 'he latter motion (as denied for lac1 of merit by the Area Office on July 2", !""F. ;aid denial (as sustained, and -ayor ConstantinoTs appeal dismissed, by Order of In,esti+ation Officer *uena, dated ;eptember !%, !""F,J2EK appro,ed by Ombudsman Aniano 2esierto on October 6, !""F. J26K -ean(hile, an information for :iolation of the Anti4&raft and Corrupt Practices Act a+ainst both -ayor Constantino and Norberto )indon+, (as filed before the ;andi+anbayan on Au+ust $, !""F, also (ith due appro,al of Ombudsman 2esierto.J2#K 9nder date of October 22, !""F, &raft In,esti+ation Officer *uena handed do(n a @esolution findin+ the petitioner S&9I)'= of +ra,e misconduct, pre0udicial to the best interest of the ser,ice, and +ross ne+lect of duty,V and orderin+ his dismissal from the ser,ice.J2FK 'hat @esolution (as, on recommendation of 2eputy Ombudsman for -indanao -ar+arito P. &er,acio, Jr. Bdated October, 2#, !""FC, appro,ed by Ombudsman 2esierto on 2ecember !F, !""F.J2K 'he @esolution of October 22, !""F ad,erted to !C S,arious dubious le+al maneu,ers set off by the respondent B-ayorC in an effort to stay the implementation of the order of pre,enti,e suspensionV includin+ the filin+ of a motion for reconsideration of the suspension order, the (ithdra(al of counsel, the filin+ of a motion for inhibition of the in,esti+ator and to reset hearin+sDJ2$K 2C (hat (as considered BaC a stran+eness of S(hy the respondent B-ayorC and -r. )indon+ (ent throu+h all the trouble to prepare and eAecute t(o separate a+reements (hen they could ha,e immediately eAecuted the lease4purchase a+reement itself,VJ2"K BbC a doubt as to the S,alidity of the 9nderta1in+ HH, it bein+ a unilateral contract as (ell as an ancillary one, as opposed to the principal contract (hich is the lease a+reement,V in addition to not bein+ Ssupported by a considerationDVJE%K and BcC the omission of the assent of the ;an++unian+ *ayan to the contract before its implementation.JE!K On the basis thereof, 2I)& @e+ional 2irector Jaime ). -adridano of @e+ion II based in 2a,ao City, sent a -emorandum Order dated 2ecember 2, !""F to &o,ernor Priscilla ). Chion+bian of ;aran+ani Pro,ince, directin+ her to enforce the directi,e for -ayor ConstantinoTs dismissal and to install the :ice -ayor in his place.JE2K he also issued a S-emorandumV to -ayor Constantino directin+ him Sto turn o,er the functions of BhisC office to the ,ice4mayor BPrimiti,a ). EspinosaC pursuant to ;ec. 66 of @A !F% HH.VJEEK 3o(e,er, this resolution of dismissal has not been implemented because, as -ayor Constantino himself states,JE6K after 2I)& 2irector -adridano (as ad,ised of the institution of the action at bar in this Court, he Sdid not insist anymore on the eAecution of the U@esolutionT Bof dismissalC in 5uestion.V -ayor Constantino has appealed the @esolution appro,ed by Ombudsman 2esierto on 2ecember !F, !""F 44 remo,in+ him from his position as -unicipal -ayor 44 by filin+ the petition for certiorari at bar.JE#K 3e has impleaded as respondents the Ombudsman, 2eputy Ombudsman &er,acio, Jr., and the complainants in the administrati,e case: :ice4 -ayor Espinosa, and Councilors -adridano, Octa,io, In+ay, As+apo, Espinosa and ;uson, ;r. And he cites the follo(in+ as special and important reasons to 0ustify a re,ie( and nullification of the @esolution issued by respondents 2esierto and &er,acio, to (it: B!C Petitioner (as denied his constitutional ri+ht to due process of la( (hen his S-otion for InhibitionV, SNotice of AppealV and -otion to @eset 3earin+V (ere denied outri+ht by respondent &er,acio Bor +raft In,esti+ation Officer *uenaC and not re,ie(ed by respondent Ombudsman 2esiertoD and B2C @espondents 2esierto and &er,acio +ra,ely abused their discretion (hen they pointedly i+nored or disre+arded the fact that petitioner merely acted in accordance (ith @es. No. 2!, ;eries of !""F and @es. no. E$, ;eries of !""F of the -unicipal Council of -alun+on, ;aran+ani, and that he did not eAceed his authority (ith respect to the transaction and the use of the se,en BC units of hea,y e5uipment ac5uired by the to(n. Pri,ate respondents Primiti,a Espinosa, @afael ;uson, Pablo Octa,io, )eo In+ay, *en0amin As+apo and <ilfredo Espinosa filed a S-otion to 2ismiss,V dated 7ebruary E, !"", (hich this Court resol,ed on 7ebruary 2#, !"", to consider as their comment on the petition. @e+ional 2irector Jaime ). -adridano submitted his comment on the petition, dated 7ebruary 2!, !"". 'he ;olicitor &eneral filed a comment in behalf of public respondents, dated April 2, !"". -ayor Constantino then presented a @eply, dated June 2!, !"", to pri,ate respondentsT -otion to 2ismiss, to (hich pri,ate respondents submitted a @e0oinder dated July 2, !"". 'he first contention of -ayor Constantino 44 that it (as error for his motions for inhibition and to reset hearin+ Snot Bto beC re,ie(ed by respondent Ombudsman 2esiertoV 44 is unmeritorious, and is 5uic1ly disposed of by reference to the terms of ;ection 2$ of @epublic Act No. F%, ,i/.:JEFK S;EC 2$. In,esti+ation in -unicipalities, Cities and Pro,inces. 44'he Office of the Ombudsman may establish offices in municipalities, cities and pro,ince outside -etropolitan -anila, under the immediate super,ision of the 2eputies for )u/on, :isayas and -indanao, (here necessary as determined by the Ombudsman. 'he in,esti+ation of complaints may be assi+ned to the re+ional or sectoral deputy concerned or to special in,esti+ator (ho shall proceed in accordance (ith the rules or special in,esti+ator (ho shall proceed in accordance (ith the rules or to a special instructions or directi,es of the Office of the Ombudsman. Pendin+ in,esti+ation, the deputy or in,esti+ator may issue orders and pro,isional remedies (hich are immediately eAecutory sub0ect to re,ie( by the Ombudsman. <ithin three BEC days after concludin+ the in,esti+ation, the deputy or in,esti+ator shall transmit, to+ether (ith the entire records of the case, his report and conclusions to the Office of the Ombudsman. <ithin fi,e B#C days after receipt of said report, the Ombudsman shall render the appropriate order, directi,e or decision.V 'he authority of the in,esti+ator B*uenaC to issue the challen+ed order. Pendin+ in,esti+ation of the administrati,e case a+ainst -ayor Constantino, cannot thus be +ainsaid bein+ specifically conferred by the pro,ision 0ust 5uoted. Indeed, any such order is, accordin+ to said pro,ision, Simmediately eAecutory,V sub0ect only to re,ie( by the Ombudsman Prescindin+ therefrom, the fact is, as already stated, that the impu+ned order (as actually re,ie(ed by a superior officer, 2irector Antonio E. :alen/uela B;eptember !E, !""FC, then recommended for appro,al by 2eputy Ombudsman &er,acio, and ultimately appro,ed by Ombudsman 2esierto on October 6, !""F.JEK 'he -ayorTs motions therefore recei,ed due attention and consideration althou+h resol,ed ad,ersely to him. 'here is no occasion to spea1 of a denial of due process. -ore persuasi,e is the -ayorTs second contention that no liability, (hether criminal or administrati,e, may be imputed to him since he merely complied (ith the mandate of @esolution No. 2!, series of !""F and @esolution No. E$, series of !""F, of the -unicipal CouncilD and that the char+es le,eled a+ainst him are politically moti,ated. A thorou+h eAamination of the records con,inces this Court that the e,idence a+ainst him is inade5uate to (arrant his dismissal from the ser,ice on the specified +rounds of +ra,e misconduct, conduct pre0udicial to the best interest of the ser,ice and +ross ne+lect of duty. 'he eAplicit terms of @esolution No. 2!, ;eries of !""F clearly authori/ed -ayor Constantino to SleaseNpurchase one B!C fleet of hea,y e5uipmentV composed of se,en BC +enerally described units, throu+h a Sne+otiated contract.VJE$K 'hat resolution, as obser,ed at the outset, contained no parameters as to rate of rental, period of lease, purchase price. Pursuant thereto, -ayor Constantino, representin+ the -unicipality of -alun+on, and Norbeto )indon+, representin+ the Norli,anian Corporation, eAecuted t(o (ritten instruments of the same date and occasion, ,i/.: One 44 an a+reementBon a standard printed formC dated 7ebruary 2$, !""F for the lease by the corporation to the municipality of hea,y e5uipment of the number and description re5uired by @esolution no. 2!, and '(o 44 an underta1in+ for the subse5uent con,eyance and transfer of o(nership of the e5uipment to the municipality at the end of the term of the lease. 'hat the -embers of the ;an++unian+ *ayan 1ne( of this SleaseNpurchaseV is e,ident from @esolution No. E$, ;eries of !""F unanimously enacted by them shortly after deli,ery of the e5uipment.JE"K In that resolution they B!C declared that Sthe -unicipal &o,ernment HH has 0ust ac5uired its fleet of hea,y e5uipment leasedNpurchased from the Norlo,anian Corporation,V and B2C re5uested -ayor Constantino Sto operate the ne(ly ac5uired hea,y e5uipment HH leasedNpurchased from the Norlo,anian Corporation.V 'he @esolution is consistent (ith the alle+ations of -ayor Constantino 44 (hich in any e,ent are not denied by the Councilors or :ice4-ayor Espinosa 44 that: !C the e5uipment (as deli,ered to the -unicipality by Norlo,anian Corporation on 7ebruary 2$, !""F and duly inspected by Councilors &uilley, @une/, Nollos and )iray, as (ell as the -unicipal En+ineer and the -unicipal 'reasurerD 2C prior to the deli,ery of the units, the :ice -ayor and other -embers of the ;an++unian+ *ayan had opportunity to read the S)ease A+reementV as (ell as the S9nderta1in+V but then raised no ob0ections theretoD EC neither did they raise any ob0ections BaC at the session of the -unicipal Council on 7ebruary 2", !""F, (hen Norberto )indon+ eAplained the terms of the Sne+otiated contractV of SleaseNpurchase,V or BbC at the time that the units (ere deli,ered and inspected by desi+nated municipal officials. No(, it is +ermane to ad,ert to the deplorable inaccuracies in the Joint Affida,it of pri,ate respondents BP.). Espinosa, ;uson, ;r., In+ay, <. P. Espinosa, Octa,io, As+apoC J6%K submitted as part of their complaint in the OmbudsmanTs Office. 'he affida,it contains a clearly distorted ,ersion of @esolution No. 2! of 7ebruary 22, !""F. In that document the affiants described @esolution No. 2! as authori/in+ -ayor Constantino Sto purchase and ac5uire HH hea,y e5uipments BsicC to be paid (ithin fi,e B#C years at the yearly amorti/ation of P2.2 million HH.V 'his is a misleadin+ readin+ of @esolution No. 2!. As the most cursory perusal of that resolution at once discloses, (hat the -ayor (as thereby empo(ered to do (as S to enter into a ne+otiated contractV in the -unicipalityTs behalf (ith Sinterested parties,V in line (ith the eApressed (ish of the -unicipality to SleaseNpurchase one B!C fleet of hea,y e5uipment HHV 44 not simply to Spurchase and ac5uireV said e5uipment Bas complainant Councilors a,erC. Neither does @esolution No. 2! state Bcontrary to complainantTs description of itC that the price shall be Spaid (ithin fi,e B#C years at the yearly amorti/ation of P2.2 million HHDV indeed. as already abo,e stressed, the resolution is completely silent as re+ards any terms and conditions of the Sne+otiated contractV that the -ayor (as assi+ned to eAecute in the to(nTs behalf. ;uch ob,ious distortions cannot but erode the complainant councilorsT credibility and bona fides. It is also rele,ant to dra( attention to the fla+rantly inaccurate statements and inferences about the -ayorTs Sne+otiated contractV re+ardin+ the hea,y e5uipment, contained in @esolution No. 6 appro,ed only by four B6C -embers of the -unicipal Council at its session of June F, !""F Bthe four B6C bein+ Councilors Octa,io, Espinosa, As+apo and In+ayC.J6!K 'hat @esolution No. 6, it (ill be recalled, stopped all Srental paymentNeApenditures relati,e to the pool of hea,y e5uipment of the Norlo,anian Company.V 'he stoppa+e (as based on prior resolutions of the Council 44 alle+edly settin+ do(n the terms under (hich the hea,y e5uipment should be ac5uired, and (hich terms (ere supposedly ,iolated by the -ayor. but 44 unaccountably and +ain indicati,e of bad faith, if not malice, on the part of pri,ate respondents 44 @esolution No. 6 made absolutely no reference to the t(o B2C resolution (hich on their face 0ustify the -ayorTs contract (ith Norlo,anian Corporation, to (it: B!C @esolution No. 2! (hich, ha,in+ been enacted after the cited resolutions, must be deemed to ha,e superseded them, and (hich, to repeat, moti,ated and constitutes the 0ustification for the lease4purchase a+reement entered into by the -ayor and Norlo,anian Corporation, and B2C @esolution No. E$ in (hich the Councilors not only eApressly ac1no(led+ed that Sthe municipal +o,ernment HH BhadC 0ust ac5uired its fleet of hea,y e5uipment leasedNpurchased from the Norlo,anian Corporation,V but also Sre5uested HH BtheC -ayor HH to operate the ne(ly ac5uired hea,y e5uipment of the municipality leasedNpurchased from the Norlo,anian Corporation.VJ62K In li+ht of the fore+oin+ facts, (hich appear to the Court to be 5uite apparent on the record, it is difficult to percei,e ho( the Office of the Ombudsman could ha,e arri,ed at a conclusion of any (ron+doin+ by the -ayor in relation to the transaction in 5uestion. It is difficult to see ho( the transaction bet(een the -ayor and Norlo,anian Corporation 44 entered into pursuant to @esolution No. 2! 44 and tacitly accepted and appro,ed by the to(n Council throu+h its @esolution No. E$ 44 could be deemed an infrin+ement of the same @esolution No. 2!. In truth, an eAamination of the pertinent (ritin+s Bthe resolutions, the t(o B2C instruments constitutin+ the ne+otiated contract, and the certificate of deli,eryC una,oidably confirms their inte+rity and con+ruity. It is, in fine, difficult to see ho( those pertinent (ritten instruments,V could establish a prima facie case to (arrant the pre,enti,e suspension of -ayor Constantino. A person (ith the most elementary +rasp of the En+lish lan+ua+e (ould, from merely scannin+ those material documents, at once reali/e that the -ayor had done nothin+ but carry out the eApressed (ishes of the ;an++unian+ *ayan. It (ould appear that &raft In,esti+ator *uena, (ho dre( up the @esolution Be,entually appro,ed by the OmbudsmanC 44 findin+ -ayor Constantino +uilty of +ra,e misconduct or +ross ne+lect of duty 44 mi+ht ha,e been carried a(ay by his disappro,al of (hat he thou+ht to be S,arious dubious maneu,ers to delay the early and eApedient disposition of HH BtheC caseV resorted to by the -ayor Sthrou+h his ,arious counsels.V 3o( those Smaneu,ersV Bassumin+ their description as dilatory to be correctC could affect the intrinsic character of the e,idence submitted by the parties is, ho(e,er, 5uite beyond the Court. 'he in,esti+ator also opined that @esolution No. 2! should be interpreted in li+ht of other official documents, eAecuted a year earlier. 3e does not eAplain (hy he did not adopt the more ob,ious construction of @esolution No. 2! indicated by the elementary doctrine that it is (ithin the po(er and prero+ati,e of the to(n council to repeal its prior acts, either eApressly, or by the passa+e of essentially inconsistent resolutions. <hen the to(n council passed @esolution No. 2! (ithout any mention (hate,er of those prior official documents respectin+ the ac5uisition to hea,y e5uipment, the e,ident intention (as to supersede them and to ha,e such ac5uisition +o,erned solely by @esolution No. 2!. 'his conclusion is stron+ly supported by the fact that the ;an+unian eApressly admitted 44 in the ;econd <hereas Clause of its @esolution No. 2! 44 that there had been a Sfailure of bidders to submit bids despite of t(o biddin+s ... public announcementV BsicC 44 the t(o biddin+s bein+ ob,iously related to said earlier official acts of the to(n council. 'he conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that the Council, (ith full a(areness of said Sne+otiated contract,V and of the deli,ery of e5uipment thereunder, had re5uested the -ayor to put the e5uipment into operation for the to(n pro0ects. 'he Court is thus satisfied that it (as in fact the CouncilTs intention, (hich it eApressed in clear lan+ua+e, to confer on the -ayor ample discretion to eAecute a Sne+otiated contractV (ith any interested party, (ithout re+ard to any official acts of the Council prior to @esolution No. 2!. It is also difficult to see (hy the patent inaccuracies in the affida,it4complaint and @esolution No. 6J6EK (ere i+nored 44 as difficult to understand ho( the eAecution of t(o (ritin+s to embody one contract of SleaseNpurchaseV could be re+arded as fatally defecti,e, and e,en indicati,e of a criminal conspiracy, or (hy said t(o (ritin+ should be interpreted in such a (ay as to ma+nify their seemin+ inconsistencies. the fundamental and familiar le+al principle 44 (hich the Office of the Ombudsman i+nored 44 is that it is perfectly le+itimate for a bilateral contract to be embodied in '(o or more separate (ritin+s, and that in such an e,ent the (ritin+s should be read and interpreted to+ether in such a (ay as to eliminate seemin+ inconsistencies and render the partiesT intention effectual. 'he statement in the appealed @esolution 44 as to the absence of prior consent of the Council to the Sne+otiated contractV eAecuted by -ayor Constantino and Norlo,anian Corporation 44 flies in the teeth of the e,idenceD there is unrebutted proof that the hea,y e5uipment deli,ered to the -unicipality pursuant to the contract, (as inspected by desi+nated councilors and municipal officersD that shortly thereafter, the ne+otiated contract 44 composed of t(o documents 44 (as eAplained and discussed at the session of the to(n Council of 7ebruary 2", !""FD and that after(ards the Council re5uested mayor Constantino to put the e5uipment into operation. 'he Court thus considers the ratiocinations and conclusion in the challen+ed resolution to be so +ra,ely and e+re+iously in error as to ma1e necessary said issuancesT in,alidation by the eAtraordinary (rit of certiorari. 'he pri,ate respondentsT ama/in+ turn4about is patent upon the record, and is branded by -ayor Constantino as a cunnin+ and treacherous political maneu,er 44 an attempted coup to oust him from his position as -ayor other(ise than throu+h the normal process of election. *e this as it may, the Court cannot and (ill not allo( itself to be made an instrument of politics, nor be pri,y to any attempt at the perpetration of in0ustice. In ,ie( of all the fore+oin+, the assailed @esolution of the respondent ombudsman dated October 22, !""F dismissin+ petitioner from the ser,ice, as (ell as the Order of pre,enti,e suspension dated -ay E!, !""F, are @E:E@;E2 and ;E' A;I2E and petitioner is EIONE@A'E2 from the administrati,e char+es a+ainst him in CA;E NO. O-*4-IN4A2-4"F4%F%. ;O O@2E@E2. ;ECON2 2I:I;ION &.@. No. 2$6! January 2", !"$ P@O:INCE O7 CE*9, petitioner, ,s. 3ONO@A*)E IN'E@-E2IA'E APPE))A'E CO9@' and A''=. PA*)O P. &A@CIA, respondents.
&9'IE@@EG, J@., J.: 'his is a petition to re,ie( the decision of the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court in A.C. &.@. C: No. FF#%2 entitled .&o,ernor @ene Espina, et. at ,. -ayor ;er+io OsmeOa, Jr., et. al, Atty. Pablo P. &arcia ,. Pro,ince of Cebu. ! affirmin+ (ith modification the order of the Court of 7irst Instance of Cebu, *ranch :II, +rantin+ respondent Pablo P. &arcia>s claim for compensation for ser,ices rendered as counsel in behalf of the respondent Pro,ince of Cebu. 'he facts of the case are not in dispute. On 7ebruary 6, !"F6, (hile then incumbent &o,ernor @ene Espina (as on official business in -anila, the :ice4&o,ernor, Priscillano Almendras and three BEC members of the Pro,incial *oard enacted @esolution No. !$$, donatin+ to the City of Cebu 2!% pro,ince o(ned lots all located in the City of Cebu, (ith an a++re+ate area of o,er E$% hectares, and authori/in+ the :ice4&o,ernor to si+n the deed of donation on behalf of the pro,ince. 'he deed of donation (as immediately eAecuted in behalf of the Pro,ince of Cebu by :ice4&o,ernor Almendras and accepted in behalf of the City of Cebu by -ayor ;er+io OsmeOa, Jr. 'he document of donation (as prepared and notari/ed by a pri,ate la(yer. 'he donation (as later appro,ed by the Office of the President throu+h EAecuti,e ;ecretary Juan Cancio. Accordin+ to the 5uestioned deed of donation the lots donated (ere to be sold by the City of Cebu to raise funds that (ould be used to finance its public impro,ement pro0ects. 'he City of Cebu (as +i,en a period of one B!C year from Au+ust !#, !"F6 (ithin (hich to dispose of the donated lots. 9pon his return from -anila, &o,ernor Espina denounced as )e+al and immoral the action of his collea+ues in donatin+ practically all the patrimonial property of the pro,ince of Cebu, considerin+ that the latter>s income (as less than one. fourth B!N6C of that of the City of Cebu. 'o pre,ent the sale or disposition of the lots, the officers and members of the Cebu -ayor>s )ea+ue Bin behalf of their respecti,e municipalitiesC alon+ (ith some taApayers, includin+ Atty. &arcia, filed a case see1in+ to ha,e the donation declared ille+al, null and ,oid. It (as alle+ed in the complaint that the plaintiffs (ere filin+ it for and in behalf of the Pro,ince of Cebu in the nature of a deri,ati,e suit. Named defendants in the suit (ere the City of Cebu, City -ayor ;er+io OsmeOa, Jr. and the Cebu pro,incial officials responsible for the donation of the pro,ince4o(ned lots. 'he case (as doc1eted as Ci,il Case No. @4$FF" of the Court of 7irst Instance of Cebu and assi+ned to *ranch :I thereof. 2efendants City of Cebu and City -ayor OsmeOa, Jr. filed a motion to dismiss the case on the +round that plaintiffs did not ha,e the le+al capacity to sue. ;ubse5uently, in an order, dated -ay, !"F#, the court dismissed Case No. @4$FF" on the +round that plaintiffs (ere not the real parties in interest in the case. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. 'his motion (as denied by the Court. -ean(hile, Cebu City -ayor ;er+io OsmeOa, Jr. announced that he (ould borro( funds from the Philippine National *an1 BPN*C and (ould use the donated lots as collaterals. In July, !"F#, the City of Cebu ad,ertised the sale of an the lots remainin+ unsold. 'hereupon, &o,ernor Espina, apprehensi,e that the lots (ould be irretrie,ably lost by the Pro,ince of Cebu, decided to +o to court. 3e en+a+ed the ser,ices of respondent &arcia in filin+ and prosecutin+ the case in his behalf and in behalf of the Pro,ince of Cebu. &arcia filed the complaint for the annulment of the deed of donation (ith an application for the issuance of a (rit of preliminary in0unction, (hich application (as +ranted on the same day, Au+ust F, !"F#. 'he complaint (as later amended to implead Cebu City -ayor Carlos P. Cui/on as additional defendant in ,ie( of 7iscal Numeriano Capan+pan+an>s manifestation statin+ that on ;eptember ", !"F#, ;er+io OsmeOa, Jr. filed his certificate of Candidacy for senator, his positionNoffice ha,in+ been assumed by City -ayor Carlos P. Cui/on. ;ometime in !"2, the Pro,incial *oard passed a resolution authori/in+ the Pro,incial Attorney, Alfredo &. *a+uia, to enter his appearance for the Pro,ince of Cebu and for the incumbent &o,ernor, :ice4&o,ernor and members of the Pro,incial *oard in this case. On January E%, !"E, Alfredo &. *a+uia, Pro,incial Attorney of the Pro,ince of Cebu, entered his appearance as additional counsel for the Pro,ince of Cebu and as counsel for &o,ernor Osmundo @ama, :ice4&o,ernor ;alutario 7ernande/ and *oard -embers )eonardo Enad, &uillermo )e+a/pi, and @i/alina -i+allos. On January E!, !"E, Atty. *a+uia filed a complaint in inter,ention statin+ that inter,enors Pro,ince of Cebu and Pro,incial *oard of Cebu (ere 0oinin+ or unitin+ (ith ori+inal plaintiff, former &o,ernor of Cebu, @ene Espina. 'hey adopted his causes of action, claims, and position stated in the ori+inal complaint filed before the court on Au+ust F, !"F#. On June 2#, !"6, a compromise a+reement (as reached bet(een the pro,ince of Cebu and the city of Cebu. On July !#, !"6, the court appro,ed the compromise a+reement and a decision (as rendered on its basis. On 2ecember 6, !"6, the court issued an order directin+ the issuance of a (rit of eAecution to implement the decision dated July !#, !"6, to (it: !. Orderin+ the City of Cebu to return and deli,er to the Pro,ince of Cebu all the lots enumerated in the second para+raph hereofD 2. Orderin+ the Pro,ince of Cebu to pay the amount of One -illion 7i,e 3undred 'housand Pesos BP!,#%%,%%%.%%C to the City of Cebu for and in consideration of the return by the latter to the former of the aforesaid lotsD E. 2eclarin+ the retention by the City of Cebu of the ele,en B!!C lots mentioned in para+raph No. ! of the compromise a+reement, namely, )ot Nos. !!6!, !2F!, !2F$, !2F", !22, !2E, "!, F6F4A, F6FA464% and !%!%4CD 6. Orderin+ the City of Cebu or the City 'reasurer to turn o,er to the Pro,ince of Cebu the amount of P!$"6$."E mentioned in AnneA .A. of the defendants manifestation dated October 2!, !"6D #. 2eclarin+ the City of Cebu and an its present and past officers completely free from liabilities to third persons in connection (ith the aforementioned lots, (hich liabilities if any, shall be assumed by the Pro,ince of CebuD F. Orderin+ the @e+ister of 2eeds of the City of Cebu to cancel the certification of titles in the name of the City of Cebu co,erin+ the lots enumerated in the second para+raph of this order and to issue ne( ones in lieu thereof in the name of the Pro,ince of Cebu. 7or ser,ices rendered in Ci,il Case no. 2E$4*C, C7I of Cebu, respondent Pablo P. &arcia filed throu+h counsel a Notice of Attorney>s )ien, dated April !6, !"#, prayin+ that his statement of claim of attorney>s lien in said case be entered upon the records thereof, pursuant to ;ection E, @ule !E$ of the @ules of Court. 'o said notice, petitioner Pro,ince of Cebu filed throu+h counsel, its opposition dated April 2E, !"#, statin+ that the payment of attorney>s fees and reimbursement of incidental eApenses are not allo(ed by la( and settled 0urisprudence to be paid by the Pro,ince. A re0oinder to this opposition (as filed by pri,ate respondent &arcia. After hearin+, the Court of 7irst Instance of Cebu, then presided o,er by Jud+e Alfredo -ari+omen, rendered 0ud+ment dated -ay E%, !"", in fa,or of pri,ate respondent and a+ainst petitioner Pro,ince of Cebu, declarin+ that the former is entitled to reco,er attorney>s fees on the basis of 5uantum meruit and fiAin+ the amount thereof at PE%,%%%.%%. *oth parties appealed from the decision to the Court of Appeals. In the case of pri,ate respondent, ho(e,er, he appealed only from that portion of the decision (hich fiAed his attorney>s fees at PE%,%%%.%% instead of at E%W of the ,alue of the properties in,ol,ed in the liti+ation as stated in his ori+inal claim On October !$, !"$#, the Intermediate Appellate Court rendered a decision affirmin+ the findin+s and conclusions of the trial court that the pri,ate respondent is entitled to reco,er attorney>s fees but fiAin+ the amount of such fees at #W of the mar1et ,alue of the properties in,ol,ed in the liti+ation as of the date of the filin+ of the claim in !"#. 'he dispositi,e portion of the decision reads: <3E@E7O@E, eAcept for the aforementioned modification that the compensation for the ser,ices rendered by the Claimant Atty. Pablo P. &arcia is fiAed at fi,e percent B#WC of the total fair mar1et ,alue of the lots in 5uestion, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects. *oth parties (ent to the ;upreme Court (ith pri,ate respondent 5uestionin+ the fiAin+ of his attorney>s fees at #W instead of E%W of the ,alue of the properties in liti+ations as prayed for in his claims. 3o(e,er, the pri,ate respondent later (ithdre( his petition in &.@. No. 2$!$ (ith the follo(in+ eAplanation: 'hat after a lon+ and serious reflection and reassessment of his position and intended course of action and, after see1in+ the ,ie(s of his friends, petitioner has come to the definite conclusion that prosecutin+ his appeal (ould only result in further delay in the final disposition of his claim Bit has been pendin+ for the last !% years 6 in the C7I and F in the Court of Appeals, later Intermediate Appellate CourtC and that it (ould be more prudent and practicable to accept in full the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. 3ence, only the petition of the Pro,ince of Cebu is pendin+ before this Court. 'he matter of representation of a municipality by a pri,ate attorney has been settled in @amos ,. Court of Appeals B!%$ ;C@A 2$C. Collaboration of a pri,ate la( firm (ith the fiscal and the municipal attorney is not allo(ed. ;ection !F$E of the @e,ised Administrati,e Code pro,ides: .;ection !F$E. 2uty of fiscal to represent pro,inces and pro,incial subdi,isions in liti+ation. 8 'he pro,incial fiscal shall represent the pro,ince and any municipality, or municipal district thereof in any court, eAcept in cases (hereof ori+inal 0urisdiction is ,ested in the ;upreme Court or in cases (here the municipality, or municipal district in 5uestion is a party ad,erse to the pro,incial +o,ernment or to some other municipality, or municipal district in the same pro,ince. <hen the interests of a pro,incial +o,ernment and of any political di,ision thereof are opposed, the pro,incial fiscal shall act on behalf of the pro,ince. <hen the pro,incial fiscal is dis5ualified to ser,e any municipality or other political subdi,ision of a pro,ince, a special attorney may be employed by its council 'he abo,e pro,ision, complemented by ;ection E of the )ocal Autonomy )a(, is clear in pro,idin+ that only the pro,incial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a pro,ince or municipality in its la(suits. 'he pro,ision is mandatory. 'he municipality>s authority to employ a pri,ate la(yer is eApressly limited only to situations (here the pro,incial fiscal is dis5ualified to represent it B2e &uia ,. 'he Auditor &eneral 66 ;C@A !F"D -unicipality of *ocaue, et. al. ,. -anoto1, "E Phil. !ED Enri5ue/, ;r., ,. 3onorable &imene/, !% Phil. "E2C as (hen he represents the pro,ince a+ainst a municipality. 'he la(ma1er, in re5uirin+ that the local +o,ernment should be represented in its court cases by a +o,ernment la(yer, li1e its municipal attorney and the pro,incial fiscal intended that the local +o,ernment should not be burdened (ith the eApenses of hirin+ a pri,ate la(yer. 'he la(ma1er also assumed that the interests of the municipal corporation (ould be best protected if a +o,ernment la(yer handles its liti+ations. It is to be eApected that the municipal attorney and the fiscal (ould be faithful and dedicated to the corporation>s interests, and that, as ci,il ser,ice employees, they could be held accountable for any misconduct or dereliction of duty B;ee @amos ,. Court of Appeals, supraC. 3o(e,er, e,ery rule is not (ithout an eAception, Ibi 5uid +eneraliter concediturD inest haec eAceptio, si non ali5uid sit contra 0us fas5ue B<here anythin+ is +ranted +enerally, this eAception is impliedD that nothin+ shall be contrary to la( and ri+htC. Indeed, e5uity, as (ell as the eAceptional situation facin+ us in the case at bar, re5uire a departure from the established rule. 'he petitioner anchors its opposition to pri,ate respondent>s claim for compensation on the +rounds that the employment of claimant as counsel for the Pro,ince of Cebu by then &o,ernor @ene Espina (as unauthori/ed and ,iolati,e of ;ection !F$! to !F$E in relation to ;ection !F" of the @e,ised Administrati,e Code and that the claim for attorney>s fees is beyond the pur,ie( of ;ection E, @ule !E$ of the @ules of Court. It is ar+ued that &o,ernor Espina (as not authori/ed by the Pro,incial *oard, throu+h a board resolution, to employ Atty. Pablo P. &arcia as counsel of the Pro,ince of Cebu. Admittedly, this is so. 3o(e,er, the circumstances obtainin+ in the case at bar are such that the rule cannot be applied. 'he Pro,incial *oard (ould ne,er ha,e +i,en such authori/ation. 'he decision of the respondent court elucidates the matter thus: ... 'he pro,isions of ;ections !F$! to !F$E of the @e,ised Administrati,e Code contemplate a normal situation (here the ad,erse party of the pro,ince is a third person as in the case of Enri5ue/ ,. Auditor &eneral, !% Phil "E2. In the present case, the contro,ersy in,ol,ed an intramural fi+ht bet(een the Pro,incial &o,ernor on one hand and the members of the Pro,incial *oard on the other hand. Ob,iously it is unthin1able for the Pro,incial *oard to adopt a resolution authori/in+ the &o,ernor to employ Atty. &arcia to act as counsel for the Pro,ince of Cebu for the purpose of filin+ and prosecutin+ a case a+ainst the members to the same Pro,incial *oard Accordin+ to the claimant Atty. &arcia, ho( can &o,ernor Espina be eApected to secure authority from the Pro,incial *oard to employ claimant as counsel for the Pro,ince of Cebu (hen the ,ery officials from (hom authority is to be sou+ht are the same officials to be sued, It is simply impossible that the :ice4&o,ernor and the members of the Pro,incial *oard (ould pass a resolution authori/in+ &o,ernor Espina to hire a la(yer to file a suit a+ainst themsel,es. AAA AAA AAA 9nder ;ection 2!%2 of the @e,ised Administrati,e Code it is the Pro,incial *oard upon (hom is ,ested the authority .to direct, in its discretion, the brin+in+ or defense of ci,il suits on behalf of the Pro,incial &o,ernor XXX.. Considerin+ that the members of the Pro,incial *oard are the ,ery ones in,ol,ed in this case, they cannot be eApected to directed the Pro,incial 7iscal the filin+ of the suit on behalf of the pro,incial +o,ernment a+ainst themsel,es. -oreo,er, as ar+ued by the claimant, e,en if the Pro,incial 7iscal should side (ith the &o,ernor in the brin+in+ of this suit, the Pro,incial *oard (hose members are made defendants in this case, can simply frustrate his efforts by directin+ him to dismiss the case or by refusin+ to appropriate funds for the eApenses of the liti+ation. ... Conse5uently, there could ha,e been no occasion for the eAercise by the Pro,incial 7iscal of his po(ers and duties since the members of the Pro,incial *oard (ould not ha,e directed him to file a suit a+ainst them. A situation obtains, therefore, (here the Pro,incial &o,ernor, in behalf of the Pro,ince of Cebu, see1s redress a+ainst the ,ery members of the body, that is, the Pro,incial *oard, (hich, under the la(, is to pro,ide it (ith le+al assistance. A strict application of the pro,isions of the @e,ise Administrati,e Code on the matter (ould depri,e the plaintiffs in the court belo( of redress for a ,alid +rie,ance. 'he pro,incial board authori/ation re5uired by la( to secure the ser,ices of special counsel becomes an impossibility. 'he decision of the respondent court is +rounded in e5uity 8 a correction applied to la(, (here on account of the +eneral comprehensi,eness of the la(, particular eAceptions not bein+ pro,ided a+ainst, somethin+ is (antin+ to render it perfect. It is also ar+ued that the employment of claimant (as ,iolati,e of sections !F$! to !F$E of the @e,ised Administrati,e Code because the Pro,incial 7iscal (ho (as the only competent official to file this case (as not dis5ualified to act for the Pro,ince of Cebu. @espondent counsel>s representation of the Pro,ince of Cebu became necessary because of the Pro,incial *oard>s failure or refusal to direct the brin+in+ of the action to reco,er the properties it had donated to the City of Cebu. 'he *oard more effecti,ely dis5ualified the Pro,incial 7iscal from representin+ the Pro,ince of Cebu (hen it directed the 7iscal to appear for its members in Ci,il Case No. @4$FF" filed by Atty. &arcia, and others, to defend its actuation in passin+ and appro,in+ Pro,incial *oard @esolution No. !$F. 'he ans(er of the Pro,incial 7iscal on behalf of the :ice4&o,ernor and the Pro,incial *oard members filed in Ci,il Case No. @4$FF"D BEAhibit .?.C upholds the ,alidity and le+ality of the donation. 3o( then could the Pro,incial 7iscal represent the Pro,ince of Cebu in the suit to reco,er the properties in 5uestionL 3o( could &o,ernor Espina be represented by the Pro,incial 7iscal or see1 authori/ation from the Pro,incial *oard to employ special counselL Nemo tenetur ad impossibile B'he la( obli+es no one to perform an impossibilityC.l(phlYitZ Neither could a prosecutor be desi+nated by the 2epartment of Justice. -alacaOan+ had already appro,ed the 5uestioned donation Anent the 5uestion of liability for respondent counsel>s ser,ices, the +eneral rule that an attorney cannot reco,er his fees from one (ho did not employ him or authori/e his employment, is sub0ect to its o(n eAception. 9ntil the contrary is clearly sho(n an attorney is presumed to be actin+ under authority of the liti+ant (hom he purports to represent BA/otes ,. *lanco, $ Phil. E"C 3is authority to appear for and represent petitioner in liti+ation, not ha,in+ been 5uestioned in the lo(er court, it (ill be presumed on appeal that counsel (as properly authori/ed to file the complaint and appear for his client. B@epublic ,. Philippine @esources 2e,elopment Corporation, !%2 Phil. "F%C E,en (here an attorney is employed by an unauthori/ed person to represent a client, the latter (ill be bound (here it has 1no(led+e of the fact that it is bein+ represented by an attorney in a particular liti+ation and ta1es no prompt measure to repudiate the assumed authority. ;uch ac5uiescence in the employment of an attorney as occurred in this case is tantamount to ratification B'an )ua ,. O> *rien, ## Phil. #EC. 'he act of the successor pro,incial board and pro,incial officials in allo(in+ respondent Atty. Pablo P. &arcia to continue as counsel and in 0oinin+ him in the suit led the counsel to belie,e his ser,ices (ere still necessary. <e apply a rule in the la( of municipal corporations: .that a municipality may become obli+ated upon an implied contract to pay the reasonable ,alue of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to (hich it has the +eneral po(er to contract. 'he doctrine of implied municipal liability has been said to apply to all cases (here money or other property of a party is recei,ed under such circumstances that the +eneral la(, independent of eApress contract implies an obli+ation upon the municipality to do 0ustice (ith respect to the same.. BE$ Am Jur. ;ec. #!#, p. !"EC: 'he obli+ation of a municipal corporation upon the doctrine of an implied contract does not connote an enforceable obli+ation. ;ome specific principle or situation of (hich e5uity ta1es co+ni/ance must be the foundation of the claim. 'he principle of liability rests upon the theory that the obli+ation implied by la( to pay does not ori+inate in the unla(ful contract, but arises from considerations outside it. 'he measure of reco,ery is the benefit recei,ed by the municipal corporation. 'he amount of the loan, the ,alue of the property or ser,ices, or the compensation specified in the contract, is not the measure. If the price named in the in,alid contract is sho(n to be entirely fair and reasonable not only in ,ie( of the labor done, but also in reference to the benefits conferred, it may be ta1en as the true measure of reco,ery. 'he petitioner can not set up the plea that the contract (as ultra ,ires and still retain benefits thereunder. 3a,in+ re+arded the contract as ,alid for purposes of reapin+ some benefits, the petitioner is estopped to 5uestion its ,alidity for the purposes of denyin+ ans(erability. 'he trial court discussed the ser,ices of respondent &arcia as follo(s: ... 'hus because of his effort in the filin+ of this case and in securin+ the issuance of the in0unction pre,entin+ the City of Cebu and ;er+io OsmeOa, Jr., from sellin+ or disposin+ the lots to third parties, on the part of the members of the Pro,incial *oard from eAtendin+ the date of the automatic re,ersion beyond Au+ust !#, !"F#, on the part of the @e+ister of 2eeds 8 from effectin+ the transfer of title of any of the donated lots to any ,endee or transferee, the disposition of these lots by the City of Cebu to third parties (as frustrated and thus: sa,ed these lots for their e,entual reco,ery by the pro,ince of Cebu. Actually it (as &o,ernor Espina (ho filed the case a+ainst Cebu City and -ayor OsmeOa. &arcia 0ust happened to be the la(yer, ;till Atty. &arcia is entitled to compensation. 'o deny pri,ate respondent compensation for his professional ser,ices (ould amount to a depri,ation of property (ithout due process of la( BCristobal ,. Employees> Compensation Commission, !%E ;C@A E2"C. 'he petitioner alle+es that althou+h they do not deny Atty. &arcia>s ser,ices for &o,ernor Espina B(ho ceased to be such &o,ernor of Cebu on ;eptember !E, !"F"C and the ori+inal plaintiffs in the case, .it cannot be said (ith candor and fairness that (ere it not for his ser,ices the lots (ould ha,e already been lost to the pro,ince fore,er, because the donation itself he (as tryin+ to en0oin and annul in said case (as sub0ect to a re,ersion clause under (hich lots remainin+ undisposed of by the City as of Au+ust !#, !"F# automatically re,erted to the pro,ince and only about ! lots (ere disposed of by Au+ust !#, !"F#.. <e 5uote respondent counsel>s comment (ith appro,al: AAA AAA AAA <hile it is true that the donation (as sub0ect to a re,ersion clause, the same clause +a,e the Pro,incial *oard the discretion to eAtend the period of re,ersion beyond Au+ust !#, !"F# Bsee para+raph E of donationC. <ith the 1no(n predisposition of the ma0ority of the members of the Pro,incial *oard, there (ould ha,e been no impediment to the eAtension of the re,ersion date to beyond Au+ust !#, !"F#. Once the date of re,ersion is eAtended, the disposition of an the donated lots (ould be only a matter of course. <e ha,e carefully re,ie(ed the records of this case and conclude that E%W or e,en #W of properties already (orth BP!2%,%%%,%%%.%%C in !"" as compensation for the pri,ate respondent>s ser,ices is simply out of the 5uestion. 'he case handled by Atty. &arcia (as decided on the basis of a compromise a+reement (here he no lon+er participated. 'he decision (as rendered after pre4trial and (ithout any hearin+ on the merits. 'he factual findin+s and applicable la( in this petition are accurately discussed in the eAhausti,e and (ell4(ritten Order of then 'rial Jud+e, no( Court of Appeals Justice Alfredo -ari+omen <e a+ree (ith his determination of reasonable fees for the pri,ate la(yer on the basis of 5uantum meruit. 'he trial court fiAed the compensation at PE%,%%%.%% and ordered reimbursement of actual eApenses in the amount of P2$".6E. <3E@E7O@E, the 5uestioned October !$, !"$# decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is set aside. 'he Order of the 'rial Court dated -ay E%, !"" is @EIN;'A'E2. ;O O@2E@E2.