This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-03-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It appears, however, that after the issuance of the Court of Appeals' decision, only Ople's personal representation signed the motion for reconsideration. There is no showing that the municipal legal officer made the same manifestation, as he previously did upon the filing of the petition.[45] From this, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was as if petitioner municipality and petitioner Ople, in his official capacity, had never moved for reconsideration of the assailed decision, and adverts to the ruling in Ramos v. Court of Appeals[46] and Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. Court of Appeals[47] that only under well-defined exceptions may a private counsel be engaged in lawsuits involving a municipality, none of which exceptions obtains in this case.[48] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| All told, it is ineluctable that Atty. Adaza had no authority to file in behalf of the petitioner the expropriation case against the respondents. In the analogous cases of Municipality of Bocaue v. Manotok[27] and Municipality of Pililia v. Court of Appeals,[28] this Court ruled that the want of authority on the part of lawyer to file a suit in behalf of a local government unit is cause enough to dismiss the actions filed by the lawyer. The same rule applies in this case. | |||||