Whether municipal council had authority to engage special counsel when provincial fiscal declined to handle constitutionality challenge case, and…
Summary
This case involves a dispute over a municipal council's authority to engage special counsel when the provincial fiscal declined to prosecute a constitutional challenge against Republic Act No. 1383. The municipality of Bauan, Batangas wanted to challenge the law creating the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority but their provincial fiscal refused, deeming the law constitutional. The municipal council engaged private counsel Julio Enriquez Sr., but the Auditor General disallowed payment of attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the provincial fiscal was not legally disqualified merely because he disagreed with the municipality's position. Legal disqualification occurs only in specific circumstances: when original jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court, when the municipality is adverse to the province or another municipality, or when the fiscal has pecuniary interest. The Court emphasized that municipal councils must follow proper channels by requesting the Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting fiscal rather than engaging private counsel without legal authority.
Focus of dispute
Whether municipal council had authority to engage special counsel when provincial fiscal declined to handle constitutionality challenge case, and whether Auditor General properly disallowed attorney's fees payment
Legal facts
Republic Act No. 1383 created National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority in June 1955. Municipal council of Bauan, Batangas adopted Resolution No. 152 opposing submission to the Act. Provincial fiscal declined to represent municipality and rendered opinion that the Act was constitutional. Municipal council passed Resolution No. 201 authorizing engagement of special counsel and appropriating P2,000 for litigation expenses. Petitioner was engaged as counsel, filed complaint in RTC Batangas (Civil No. 542), and claimed P500 initial attorney's fee. Auditor General disallowed the fee payment based on Secretary of Justice opinion that provincial fiscal was not disqualified and municipal council lacked authority to engage special counsel.
Judgement and reasoning
{"Auditor General": "Disallowed petitioner's claim for P500 initial attorney's fees based on Secretary of Justice opinion dated May 10, 1957, holding that provincial fiscal was not disqualified to handle the case and municipal council had no authority to engage special counsel. No objection to refund of P40 docket fee.", "Supreme Court (SC)": "Affirmed Auditor General's decision. Held that provincial fiscal is legal adviser and representative of municipalities except when disqualified by law (when original jurisdiction in Supreme Court, when municipality adverse to province/other municipality, or when fiscal pecuniarily involved). Fiscal's opinion that Republic Act No. 1383 was constitutional does not constitute legal disqualification. Bias or prejudice not based on legal grounds do not justify disqualification. Municipal council should have requested Secretary of Justice to appoint acting provincial fiscal instead of engaging special counsel. Services engaged without legal authority, thus Auditor General correctly disallowed payment."}