This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-07-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| petitioner executed the purported directive. Clearly, this is irregular since under Sec. 4, par. 10, in relation to par. 7,[13] RA 1161 as amended by RA 8282 (The Social Security Act of 1997, which was already effective[14] when the instant petition was filed), it is the SSC as a collegiate body which has the power to approve, confirm, pass upon or review the action of the SSS to sue in court. Moreover, the appearance of the internal legal staff of the SSS as counsel in the present proceedings is similarly questionable because under both RA 1161 and RA 8282 it is the Department of Justice (DoJ) that has the authority to act as counsel of the SSS.[15] It is well settled that the legality of the representation of an unauthorized counsel may be raised at any stage of the proceedings[16] and that such illicit representation produces no legal effect.[17] Since nothing in the case at bar shows that the approval or ratification of the SSC has been undertaken in the manner prescribed by law and that the DoJ has not delegated the authority to act as counsel and appear herein, the instant petition must necessarily fail. These procedural deficiencies are serious matters which this Court cannot take lightly and simply ignore since the SSS is in reality confessing judgment to charge expenditure against the trust fund under its custodianship. In Premium Marble Resources v. Court of Appeals[18] we held that no person, not even its officers, could validly sue in behalf of a corporation in the absence of any resolution from the governing body | |||||