Lawyerly

GR No. 193681

2014-08-06

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

To expound, it is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG[26] which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers and functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people before any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.[27] Explicitly, Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code[28] provides that: SECTION 35. Powers and Functions. The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. x x x. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:

GR No. 191531

2013-03-06

REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF CECILIO

PEREZ, J.

Unlike a practicing lawyer who can decline employment, it has been ruled that the Solicitor General cannot refuse to perform his duty to represent the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, officials and agents without a just and valid reason.[34] Resolving a challenge against the Solicitor General's withdrawal of his appearance from cases involving the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in Gonzales v. Chavez,[35] the Court traced the statutory origins and transformation of the OSG and concluded that the performance of its vested functions and duties is mandatory and compellable by mandamus.[36] The Court ratiocinated that, "[s]ound management policies require that the government's approach to legal problems and policies formulated on legal issues be harmonized and coordinated by a specific agency."[37] Finding that that the Solicitor General's withdrawal of his appearance was "beyond the scope of his authority in the management of a case," the Court enunciated that the enjoinment of the former's duty is not an interference with his discretion in handling the case but a directive to prevent the failure of justice.[38]

GR No. 158189

2010-04-23

ROBERTO B. KALALO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

PERALTA, J.

The import of the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code of 1987 is to impose upon the Office of the Solicitor General the duty to appear as counsel for the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts and tribunals in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. Its mandatory character was emphasized by this Court in the case of Gonzales v. Chavez,[21] thus: It is patent that the intent of the lawmaker was to give the designated official, the Solicitor General, in this case, the unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings. Spread out in the laws creating the office is the discernible intent which may be gathered from the term "shall", which is invariably employed, from Act No. 136 (1901) to the more recent Executive Order No. 292 (1987).

GR No. 169711

2010-02-08

HEIRS OF SARAH MARIE PALMA BURGOS v. CA

ABAD, J.

The Court is firmly convinced that considering the spirit and the letter of the law, there can be no other logical interpretation of Sec. 35 of the Administrative Code than that it is, indeed, mandatory upon the OSG to "represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.[26]

GR No. 179895

2008-12-18

TOPACIO v. ONG

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In the exercise of sound discretion, the Solicitor General may suspend or turn down the institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just and valid reasons.[21] Thus, in Gonzales v. Chavez,[22] the Court ruled:Like the Attorney-General of the United States who has absolute discretion in choosing whether to prosecute or not to prosecute or to abandon a prosecution already started, our own Solicitor General may even dismiss, abandon, discontinue or compromise suits either with or without stipulation with the other party. Abandonment of a case, however, does not mean that the Solicitor General may just drop it without any legal and valid reasons, for the discretion given him is not unlimited. Its exercise must be, not only within the parameters get by law but with the best interest of the State as the ultimate goal.[23]

GR No. 178830

2008-07-14

ROLEX SUPLICO v. NATIONAL ECONOMIC

REYES, R.T., J.

Petitioner Suplico cites this Court's rulings in Gonzales v. Chavez,[6] Rufino v. Endriga,[7] and Alunan III v. Mirasol[8] that despite their mootness, the Court nevertheless took cognizance of these cases and ruled on the merits due to the Court's symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar by formulating guiding and controlling principles, precepts, doctrines, and rules.

GR NO. 164196

2007-06-22

CONSTANTINO T. GUMARU v. QUIRINO STATE COLLEGE

PUNO, C.J.

(13) A government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations may be further categorized by the Department of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for purposes of the exercise and discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations. Therefore, the proper statutory counsel of respondent state college is the OSG. Legal representation by Atty. Carlos T. Aggabao, a private lawyer, was clearly improper. In Gonzales v. Chavez,[20] we traced the statutory origins of the OSG and ruled that its mandate to act as the principal law office of the government is compulsory, viz:In x x x tracing the origins of the Office of the Solicitor General to gain a clear understanding of the nature of the functions and extent of [its] powers x x x, it is evident that a policy decision was made in the early beginnings to consolidate in one official the discharge of legal functions and services of the government. x x x

GR NO. 129318

2006-10-27

DIRECTOR CELSO PASCUAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICE v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The authority of the OSG to represent the Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents, is embodied under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 which provides that: SEC. 35. Powers and Functions.-The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and intrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent government owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: (1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. (Emphasis supplied.) The import of the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code of 1987 is to impose upon the OSG the duty to appear as counsel for the Government, its agencies and instrumentalites and its officials and agents before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts and tribunals in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. We emphasized its mandatory character in the case of Gonzales v. Chavez,[21] thus: It is patent that the intent of the lawmaker was to give the designated official, the Solicitor General, in this case, the unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings. Spread out in the laws creating the office is the discernible intent which may be gathered from the term "shall," which is invariably employed, from Act No. 136 (1901) to the more recent Executive Order No. 292 (1987).

GR No. 160657

2004-12-17

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. NIMFA P. ASENSI

TINGA, J.

government in appellate proceedings.[5] The Court, in Gonzales v. Chavez,[6] traced extensively the statutory history of the OSG, which has existed in this jurisdiction as far back as 1901[7]. Currently, the powers and functions of the OSG are defined under

GR No. 130433

2002-04-17

REPUBLIC v. MAXIMO I. PLANES

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

"Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be furnished the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Register of Deeds and by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority of a notice of such order or judgment without any appeal having been filed by any such officials." (Emphasis supplied) The Court of Appeals' reliance on the above provision is misplaced. We cannot overlook the indispensable role of the Solicitor General as the lawyer of the government. Pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, the OSG represents the government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities. Being the "principal law officer and legal defender of the Government," the Solicitor General possesses the unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings,[41] more particularly in all land registration and related proceedings.[42] Consequently, the proper basis for computing the reglementary period to file an appeal, and for determining whether a decision has attained finality, is the service of a copy thereof on the OSG.[43]

	GR No. 193681 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. PHILIP PICCIO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To expound, it is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG[26] which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers and functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people before any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.[27] Explicitly, Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code[28] provides that: SECTION 35. Powers and Functions. The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. x x x. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:
	GR No. 191531 2013-03-06	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF CECILIO PEREZ, J.
Unlike a practicing lawyer who can decline employment, it has been ruled that the Solicitor General cannot refuse to perform his duty to represent the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, officials and agents without a just and valid reason.[34] Resolving a challenge against the Solicitor General's withdrawal of his appearance from cases involving the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in Gonzales v. Chavez,[35] the Court traced the statutory origins and transformation of the OSG and concluded that the performance of its vested functions and duties is mandatory and compellable by mandamus.[36] The Court ratiocinated that, "[s]ound management policies require that the government's approach to legal problems and policies formulated on legal issues be harmonized and coordinated by a specific agency."[37] Finding that that the Solicitor General's withdrawal of his appearance was "beyond the scope of his authority in the management of a case," the Court enunciated that the enjoinment of the former's duty is not an interference with his discretion in handling the case but a directive to prevent the failure of justice.[38]
	GR No. 158189 2010-04-23	ROBERTO B. KALALO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
The import of the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code of 1987 is to impose upon the Office of the Solicitor General the duty to appear as counsel for the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts and tribunals in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. Its mandatory character was emphasized by this Court in the case of Gonzales v. Chavez,[21] thus: It is patent that the intent of the lawmaker was to give the designated official, the Solicitor General, in this case, the unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings. Spread out in the laws creating the office is the discernible intent which may be gathered from the term "shall", which is invariably employed, from Act No. 136 (1901) to the more recent Executive Order No. 292 (1987).
	GR No. 169711 2010-02-08	HEIRS OF SARAH MARIE PALMA BURGOS v. CA ABAD, J.
The Court is firmly convinced that considering the spirit and the letter of the law, there can be no other logical interpretation of Sec. 35 of the Administrative Code than that it is, indeed, mandatory upon the OSG to "represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.[26]
	GR No. 179895 2008-12-18	TOPACIO v. ONG CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the exercise of sound discretion, the Solicitor General may suspend or turn down the institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just and valid reasons.[21] Thus, in Gonzales v. Chavez,[22] the Court ruled:Like the Attorney-General of the United States who has absolute discretion in choosing whether to prosecute or not to prosecute or to abandon a prosecution already started, our own Solicitor General may even dismiss, abandon, discontinue or compromise suits either with or without stipulation with the other party. Abandonment of a case, however, does not mean that the Solicitor General may just drop it without any legal and valid reasons, for the discretion given him is not unlimited. Its exercise must be, not only within the parameters get by law but with the best interest of the State as the ultimate goal.[23]
	GR No. 178830 2008-07-14	ROLEX SUPLICO v. NATIONAL ECONOMIC REYES, R.T., J.
Petitioner Suplico cites this Court's rulings in Gonzales v. Chavez,[6] Rufino v. Endriga,[7] and Alunan III v. Mirasol[8] that despite their mootness, the Court nevertheless took cognizance of these cases and ruled on the merits due to the Court's symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar by formulating guiding and controlling principles, precepts, doctrines, and rules.
	GR NO. 164196 2007-06-22	CONSTANTINO T. GUMARU v. QUIRINO STATE COLLEGE PUNO, C.J.
(13) A government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations may be further categorized by the Department of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for purposes of the exercise and discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations. Therefore, the proper statutory counsel of respondent state college is the OSG. Legal representation by Atty. Carlos T. Aggabao, a private lawyer, was clearly improper. In Gonzales v. Chavez,[20] we traced the statutory origins of the OSG and ruled that its mandate to act as the principal law office of the government is compulsory, viz:In x x x tracing the origins of the Office of the Solicitor General to gain a clear understanding of the nature of the functions and extent of [its] powers x x x, it is evident that a policy decision was made in the early beginnings to consolidate in one official the discharge of legal functions and services of the government. x x x
	GR NO. 129318 2006-10-27	DIRECTOR CELSO PASCUAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICE v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The authority of the OSG to represent the Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents, is embodied under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 which provides that: SEC. 35. Powers and Functions.-The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and intrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent government owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: (1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. (Emphasis supplied.) The import of the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code of 1987 is to impose upon the OSG the duty to appear as counsel for the Government, its agencies and instrumentalites and its officials and agents before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts and tribunals in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. We emphasized its mandatory character in the case of Gonzales v. Chavez,[21] thus: It is patent that the intent of the lawmaker was to give the designated official, the Solicitor General, in this case, the unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings. Spread out in the laws creating the office is the discernible intent which may be gathered from the term "shall," which is invariably employed, from Act No. 136 (1901) to the more recent Executive Order No. 292 (1987).
	GR No. 160657 2004-12-17	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. NIMFA P. ASENSI TINGA, J.
government in appellate proceedings.[5] The Court, in Gonzales v. Chavez,[6] traced extensively the statutory history of the OSG, which has existed in this jurisdiction as far back as 1901[7]. Currently, the powers and functions of the OSG are defined under
	GR No. 130433 2002-04-17	REPUBLIC v. MAXIMO I. PLANES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
"Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be furnished the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Register of Deeds and by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority of a notice of such order or judgment without any appeal having been filed by any such officials." (Emphasis supplied) The Court of Appeals' reliance on the above provision is misplaced. We cannot overlook the indispensable role of the Solicitor General as the lawyer of the government. Pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, the OSG represents the government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities. Being the "principal law officer and legal defender of the Government," the Solicitor General possesses the unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings,[41] more particularly in all land registration and related proceedings.[42] Consequently, the proper basis for computing the reglementary period to file an appeal, and for determining whether a decision has attained finality, is the service of a copy thereof on the OSG.[43]

RAMON A. GONZALES v. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ