Office of the Solicitor General v. CA and Municipal Government of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur

Facts:

The Municipality of Saguiran was named a respondent in a petition for mandamus4 filed with RTC of Lanao del Sur by the former members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Saguiran, namely, Macmod P. Masorong, Amrosi Macote Samporna, Alanie L. Dalama, Hassan P. Amai-Kurot and Cadalay S. Rataban. Therein petitioners sought to compel the Municipality of Saguiran to pay them the aggregate amount of 726,000.00, representing their unpaid terminal leave benefits under Section 5 of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Nos. 41, Series of 1998 and 14, Series of 1999. The Municipality of Saguiran sought the trial court’s dismissal of the petition through its Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim.

RTC issued an Order dismissing the petition on the ground that the act being sought by therein petitioners was not a ministerial duty. The RTC explained that the payment of terminal leave benefits had to undergo the ordinary process of verification, approval or disapproval by municipal officials. The Municipality of Saguiran partially appealed the order of the RTC to the CA. The OSG initially moved for a suspension of the period to file the required memorandum, explaining that it had not received any document or pleading in connection with the case. It asked for a period of 30 days from receipt of such documents within which to file the required memorandum. On April 23, 2010, the OSG’s motion was denied by the CA on the ground that the relief sought was not among the remedies allowed under the Rules of Court. The OSG was instead given a non-extendible period of 90 days from notice within which to file the memorandum. OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion12 requesting to be excused from filing the memorandum on the ground of lack of legal authority to represent the Municipality of Saguiran but it was denied.

Issue:

The Honorable CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in compelling the OSG to represent the municipal government of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur in its lawsuit.

Held:

Meritorious. OSG’s mandate under the Administrative Code must be construed taking into account the other statutes that pertain to the same subject of representation in courts. As the Court explained in Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Green Asia Construction & Development Corporation:

Statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same person or thing or to the same class of persons or things, or object, or cover the same specific or particular subject matter.

It is axiomatic in statutory construction that a statute must be interpreted, not only to be consistent with itself, but also to harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complete, coherent and intelligible system. The rule is expressed in the maxim, “interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi,” or every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.

Specifically for local government units, the LGC limits the lawyers who are authorized to represent them in court actions, as the law defines the mandate of a local government unit’s legal officer.

Evidently, this provision of the LGC not only identifies the powers and functions of a local government unit’s legal officer. It also restricts, as it names, the lawyer who may represent the local government unit as its counsel in court proceedings. Being a special law on the issue of representation in court that is exclusively made applicable to local government units, the LGC must prevail over the provisions of the Administrative Code, which classifies only as a general law on the subject matter.

Given the foregoing, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions which obligated the OSG to represent the Municipality of Saguiran.

The mere fact that the OSG initially filed before the CA a motion for extension of time to file the required memorandum could not have estopped it from later raising the issue of its lack of authority to represent the Municipality of Saguiran. Its mandate was to be traced from existing laws. No action of the OSG could have validated an act that was beyond the scope of its authority.