Case No. 2 Hernando J. GR No. 213287
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. HIGH DESERT STOP OVERS HERNANDO, J.
 |
| Case Digest No. 2 |
Facts:
Petitioner argues that the Compromise Agreement entered into by MMDA and HDSOI without the participation of the OSG is null and void.
It claims that the Solicitor General represents the Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities in any litigation, investigation, or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. It avers that by virtue of the Deputation Letter issued on July 2, 2010, deputized counsels Attys. Ruth B. Castelo and Gilbert G. Kintanar should submit to the Solicitor General for review, approval, and signature all important pleadings and motions pertaining to the case, as well as compromise agreements.
 |
| A woman saves P39,000 as a result of the 'invisible P50' money challenge. |
Since the Compromise Agreement was not reviewed, approved, and signed by the OSG, petitioner contends that it is void ab initio. Petitioner adds that notwithstanding the authority granted by MMC over former MMDA Chairman Inocentes to enter into a compromise agreement with HDSOI, the same shall be approved by MMC before its submission to the trial court for approval. In view thereof, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in approving the said Compromise Agreement.
Petitioner also points out that the CA failed to address their argument that the Compromise Agreement should have been declared null and void for being grossly disadvantageous to the government. Said argument averred that the agreement failed to state with particularity the factors considered in determining the rental rate of the passenger stations built by HOSOI and that the amount of P2,500.00 rental fee per passenger station is insufficient.
 |
| Get Paid to Promote Your Favorite Brands Online; The Biginner's Guide |
It adds that former MMDA Chairman Inocentes and HOSOI managed to extend the agreements which were about to expire at the time for another fifteen ( 15) years in the form of the Compromise Agreement without the approval of the OSG.
In view of the attendant circumstances, petitioner argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to render a judgment approving a void compromise agreement.
 |
| Bar Syllabus (2023) - Examination Notebook Outline Space for Exam Notes HernandoBar |
Ruling:
Republic v. Fetalvero discussed the role of a deputized counsel in relation to the OSG, and the effect of the lack of approval of the OSG in a compromise agreement:
"The power of the OSG to deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist it in representing the government is well settled. The Administrative Code of 1987 explicitly states that the OSG shall have the power to "deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their respective offices, brought before the courts and exercise supervision and control over such legal officers with respect to such cases." But it is likewise settled that the OSG's deputized counsel is "no more than the 'surrogate' of the Solicitor General in any particular proceeding" and the latter remains the principal counsel entitled to be furnished copies of all court orders, notices, and decisions .
. . . The appearance of the deputized counsel did not divest the OSG of control over the case and did not make the deputized special attorney the counsel of record.
 |
| How I did it; how I aced the Bar Exams |
xxxx
Nonetheless, despite the lack of the Solicitor General's approval, this Court holds that the government is still bound by the Compromise Agreement due to laches.
The Solicitor General is assumed to have known of the Compromise Agreement since, as principal counsel, she was furnished a copy of the trial court's .June 27, 2008 Order, which referred the case to mediation. [Even if] she did not know that Atty. Lorea signed a Compromise Agreement, she was later informed of it through the copy of the trial court's October 17, 2008 Order, which approved the Compromise Agreement. The Solicitor
General received the October 17, 2008 Order on November 6, 2008; yet, she filed no appeal or motion to contest the Order or the Compromise Agreement's validity."
In Republic of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the government failed to oppose the petition for reconstitution. This is [despite] receiving copies of the petition and its annexes through the Registrar of Deeds, Director of Lands, Solicitor General, and the Provincial Fiscal, and even after judgment on the compromise agreement. This Court held:
"Thereafter, when judgment was rendered based on the compromise agreement without awaiting the report and recommendation of the Land Registration Administration and the verification of the Registrar of Deeds concerned, its failure to file a motion to set aside the judgment of the court after due notice likewise proves that no interest of the government was prejudiced by such judgment."
 |
| 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐑 (4) 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐏𝐇 𝐑𝐔𝐋𝐄. by ✍️Atty. Lex inMotion |
In the case before Us, the Government is bound by the MOA due to [estoppel]. The OSG is assumed to have known about the existence of the MOA as petitioner's principal counsel. At the very least, even if the OSG had no prior knowledge of the MOA, it was duly notified on November 10, 2010 when it received a copy of the assailed Judgment dated July 2, 2010 together with other Orders issued by the trial court which approved the MOA.
Notwithstanding such knowledge, the OSG failed to file an appeal or resort to other remedies to contest the validity of the MOA.
This Court also agrees with the appellate court's ruling that the action for annulment of judgment is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. "An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the court. It shall be availed of when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner."
According to the appellate court, the petitioner must show absolute lack of jurisdiction, not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion since these are two entirely different concepts.
 |
| After passing the Bar Exams, here are five things you should do to prepare for a legal career |
Lack of jurisdiction means that the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the complaint or petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
In the case at bar, the CA is correct when it ruled that what is being assailed is [not the trial court's lack of jurisdiction] but only the exercise thereof - which is not a ground for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Indubitably, as a [court of general jurisdiction], the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint for injunction and damages and over the person ofMMDA.
While jurisprudence dictates that the lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the proceedings, even for the first time in appeal, it is not an absolute rule. It admits of an exception as when the defendant actively participated in the proceedings and invoked the court's jurisdiction.
 |
| Deli Highlighter Macaron Pastel For School Supplies 1Pc EU356 (Limited Stock) |
Therefore, as correctly held by the appellate court, there is no basis for the argument of lack of jurisdiction considering MMDA's active participation in the proceedings because it even jointly moved for the trial court's approval of the MOA.
After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Whether through inadvertence or negligence of its deputized counsel or the OSG itself, the decision has already become final and executory.
 |
| Brain Supplements: Do They Work? |
Besides, there would be no end to litigation if the parties who have failed to avail of any of the appropriate remedies or lost them through their fault or inadvertence could have unfavorable decisions annulled by simply bringing an action for annulment of judgment.
Considering the foregoing, the MOA entered into by MMDA and HDSOI without the OSG 's prior approval is valid.
 |
| BRAIN ENHACER STIMULATOR OIL (BRAIN POWER! 15ml) by Tin's Organic |
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for failure to establish any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
The assailed July 31, 2013 Decision and June 6, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125286 are hereby AFFIRMED
Note. For easy access, open file via Google Drive app.
 |
| Download |
Note:
If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking Ads once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.
To learn more about Philippine laws and jurisprudence, visit our LINK-IN-BIO.
Comments
Post a Comment