LEGPROF CASES BATCH II
(Sec. 1, PD No. 478).
DOTC SEC. ORBOS vs CSC and
MADARANG
FACTS:
Reorganization of DOTC--
Magnayon and Agon were appointed as
Head Telecommunications Engineer.
Madarang, appointed as
Supervising Telecommunications Engineer
questioned the appointment.
Reorganization Appeals Board of
DOTC dismissed the appeal for lack of
merit.
Madarang appealed with the CSC.
CSC decided in favor of
Madarang--revoked appointment of
Magnayon and Agon, and appointed
Madarang for the questioned position.
Asst. Sec. Sibal sought for
reconsideration, but was denied. He sent a
manifestation that the Selection and
Promotions Board of the DOTC will
convene to deliberate on the appointment
for the contested position.
Madarang sent a letter to CSC
requesting got the implementation of its
resolution. CSC directed his appointment
as Head Telecommunications Engineer.
Solicitor General, on behalf of
DOTC Sec. Orbos, filed a petition for
certiorari with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CSC acted in
excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered
the appointment of Nerio .
HELD:
Yes. CSC has the power to
approve or disapprove appointments but
not the power to make the appointment
(Par. H, Sec. 9, PD No. 807).
ADDITIONAL:
Madarang filed a motion to
disqualify the Solicitor General from
appearing on behalf of petitioner.
Solicitor General is the lawyer of
the government.
Part of his task is to represent the
government, its agencies and
instrumentalities, its officials and agents in
any litigation, proceeding, investigation or
matter requiring the services of a lawyer
His duty is to present to the court
what he considers would legally uphold the
best interest of the government.
GONZALES vs HON. CHAVEZ,
SOLICITOR GENERAL, PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, and COMMISSION ON
AUDIT
FACTS:
SG filed a pleading stating that he
withdraws as counsel for PCGG, with the
reservation to submit his comment on
incidents pending if called by
circumstances in the interest of the
government, or if required by the court.
Ramon Gonzales, a tax payer,
questions the SG's withdrawal as counsel
of the PCGG.
SG's withdrawal caused PCGG to
hire 40 private lawyers
Gonzales filed, as a class suit, a
petition for mandamus and prohibition with
prayer for the issuance of a TRO against
the OSG, PCGG and COA.
The Court required respondents'
comments.
COA: it has not allowed the
disbursement of funds to pay the PCGG-
hired lawyers
PCGG:
-It contended that its power to file
and prosecute all cases investigated by it
includes the grant of discretion to the
Commission in determining the manner of
filing and prosecuting its cases, including
the matter of who, in particular, will control
and supervise the prosecution (Sec. 1, EO
No. 14)
-It concluded that the
reasonableness of the compensation for its
hired lawyers can be hardly questioned
considering the expertise of said lawyers
and the complexity of the cases they would
be handling for the PCGG
OSG:
-PCGG failed to cooperate with
them in regard to the 39 cases and the
suits and countersuits that stemmed out of
them. The PCGG has disposed of their
services, as the Commission has
announced through TV and print.
-Petition should be dismissed for
the Court allowed the SG's withdrawal
making the petition moot and academic.
-Petitioner had no "court standing"
nor "litigable interest."
Petitioner:
-A question of public right is
involved which gives him the court
standing.
-The petition may be moot and
academic as it is settled between the SG
and PCGG, but between him, the OSG
and the PCGG, a real controversy still
existed.
-A judgement of prohibition and
mandamus would have practical legal
effect and can be enforced
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Solicitor
General neglected his public duty by
withdrawing as counsel for the Republic of
the Philippines and the PCGG.
Whether or not the PCGG acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction in hiring
private lawyers as a result of such
withdrawal of appearance.
HELD:
Yes. The Court was firmly
convinced that there can be no other
logical interpretation of Sec. 35 of the
Administrative Code than that it is indeed
mandatory upon the OSG ti represent the
Government of the Philippines.
Yes. The PCGG under the law of
its creation and it complementary Rules,
ineluctably lead to no other conclusion but
that the law office of the PCGG and the
rest of the Government is the OSG.
The writ of prohibition was not
granted, but a writ of mandamus was, and
directed the SG to immediately re-enter his
appearance in the cases wherein he had
filed a motion to withdraw appearance.
KELD STEMMERICK vs ATTY.
LEONUEL MAS
FACTS:
Keld Stemmerick wanted to
acquire land in the Philippines, and Atty.
Leonuel Mas informed him that aliens can
acquire real property in the Phil.
Stemmerick put his confidence in
Atty. Mas and left for Denmark, leaving the
latter to process all the paperwork.
Atty. Mas garnered P400,000 for
his services and later P3.2 million for the
property.
Respondent created documents for
the purchase of property:
Deed of Sale between De Mesa
(owner of the property) and a certain Ailyn
Gonzales (to whom the property was
conveyed to)
Acknowledgement receipt for
Stemmerick upon Atty. Mas' receipt of the
P3.8 million.
An agreement between Gonzales
and Stemmerick stating that it was the
latter who provided the funds in purchasing
the property
Stemmerick wondered when the
property would be put under his name. It
was then that respondent became evasive
and failed ti reply to complainant's e-mails
and calls.
Stemmerick went back to the
Philippines and hire the services of
Jimenez-Gonzales-Liwanag-Bello-
Valdez_Caluyo-and-Fernandez Law Office.
Through them, he ascertained that aliens
cannot acquire real property in the
Philippines.
CENRO revealed that the property
is within the US Military Reservation and
stated that it cannot be disposed nor
acquired.
Complainant filed a disbarment
case against Atty. Mas for serious
misconduct with Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP.
Respondent having failed to file his
answer and appear in scheduled
mandatory conference, CBD upon
investigation found out that Atty. Mas has
left his law office in Olongapo.
CBD ruled that respondent
misused his professional status as a tool
for deceiving complainant and
recommended his disbarment.
Board of Governors of the IBP
adopted CBD's findings and
recommendations with modification
requiring respondent to return the
P4.2million.
HELD:
Respondent did not inform IBP of
his change in address and contact number,
making the service of notice in his
registered address in the records of IBP
sufficient notice.
Respondent committed a serious
breach of oath as a lawyer. In giving
advice that directly contradicted a
fundamental constitutional policy, he
showed disrespect for the Constitution and
gross ignorance of basic law. He even
prepared documents that he knew were
void and illegal.
His misconduct also constituted
disregarding the trust and confidence of
his client and embezzled s total of P4.2
million.
LUISA ORTEGA, et al vs CA
Joaqui Ortega died intestate, and
was survived by her wife Emilia and their
daughters. Emilia initiated the intestae
proceedings and she was appointed
administyratix.
Calixta Yap, claiming as decedent's
common-law-wife, filed a motion for
reconsideration. Petition was denied.
The appointed administratix
compliantly filed inventory which the court
approved.
Calixta's children filed a motion for
intervention in the intestae proceedings.
Which later they filed a motion for dimissal
for. CFI then declared Emilia and her
children the legal heirs of Joaquin.
Calixta filed a complaint for
quieting of title, declaration of nullity of
sale, annulment of tax declaration,
damages and other reliefs
she is the owner of a parcel of land
situated in Sta. Cruz, Isabel.
Calixta and her grandfather
executed a simulated deed of sale
trasnferring said lot to Joaquin
Calixta amended complaint
claiming that she was married to Joaquin
secretly; that they're children are legitimate
or were legitimated.
Calixta for the third time amended
complaint asking for other lots, constituting
the whole of Joaquin's estate.
CFI converted an action for
quieting of title, declaration of nullity of sale
and annulment of tax declaration into an
action for declaration of the legal wife,
legitimate children, and legal heirs the
deceased.
Filed petition for certiorari with CA,
dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether of not CFI Judge Estenzo
acted in excess of jurisdiction when he
converted Civil Case No. 1184-0, an action
for quieting of title, declaration of nullity of
sale, and annulment of tax declaration of a
parcel of land, into an action for the
declaration of who is the legal wife, the
legitimate children and compulsory heirs.
HELD:
Yes. A probate court cannot
adjudicate or determine title to properties
claimed to be a part of the estate which
are equally claimed to belong to outside
parties.
All that the said court could do is
determine whether they should or should
not be included in the inventory or list of
properties to be administered by the
administrator. If there is no dispute, well
and good, but if there is, then the parties
have to resort to an ordinary action for a
final determination of the conflicting claims
of title because the probate court cannot
do so.
The petition for certiorari is
granted, and the case was remanded to
the trial court for a full hearing only on the
question of ownership of the land in Sta.
Cruz, Leyte.