Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A local government must first have a corporate name in order to be able to act as a
juridical entity and exercise such corporate powers granted to it.
Change of Name
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan may, in consultation with the Philippine Historical
Institute, change the name of component cities and municipalities, upon the
recommendation of the Sangguanian concerned, provided that the same shall be
effective only upon ratification in a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the
political unit directly affected.
It will not dissolve nor destroy the identity of the municipal corporation, nor affect its
rights, privileges or liabilities.
It is prohibited to use the names of living persons except for justifiable reasons.
Corporate
The term signifies that a local government unit has a distinct and separate
personality an action against this entity cannot be filed against the officers;
judgment against the officers alone cannot bind the LGU; and assets owned by the
LGU cannot be made to satisfy the judgment against the officers.
LGUs may only be held liable for the acts of its officers only when they acted by
authority and in conformity with the requirements of the law.
The term corporate also signifies that as an entity, the LGU generally acts through a
governing body.
II.
While not an inherent power, this is vested in LGUs not only by the LGC of 1991, but
also in the charters creating them.
This explicit grant of power is one form of an express consent on the part of the
State to be sued.
Suability v Liability
Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable
law, and the established facts. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the
state has allowed itself to be sued. It is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove
that the defendant is liable.
GR: LGU sues through its local chief executive and as authorized by the
Sanggunian.
Exception: [City Council of Cebu v Cuizon] through its councilors in a representative
suit and as taxpayers
GR: LGUs must be represented by accountable public officers (city attorney or
provincial fiscal)
Exception: Government lawyer is clearly disqualified to handle the case, there exists
a conflict of interest
A municipality may adopt the work already performed in good faith by the private
lawyer, which work is beneficial to it: provided that no injustice is thereby heaped on
the adverse party; and provide further that no compensation in any guise is paid
therefor by said municipality to the private lawyer.
Unless so expressly adopted, the work of a private lawyer cannot bind the
municipality.
III.
IV.
Non-compliance with I and iii contract is ultra vires and is null and void
Non-compliance ii and iv, contract is defective, may be ratified.
The doctrine of estoppel will not apply to void contacts.
The doctrine of implied municipal liability applies to transactions without contracts but
could have been valid had one been entered into, to the extent of the benefit
received.
Power to Negotiate and Secure Grants
Local chief executives may, upon authority of the Sanggunian, negotiate
and secure financial grants or donations in kind, in support of the basic services or
facilities under Section 17 of the LGC, from local and foreign assistance agencies
without necessity of securing clearance or approval therefor from any department,
agency, or office of the national government or from any higher local government
unit.
However, such projects financed by such grants or assistance with national
security implications shall be approved by the national agency concerned, provided
that when such national agency fails to act on the request for approval within thirty
(30) days from receipt thereof, the same shall be deemed approved.
The local chief executive shall, within thirty (30) days upon signing of such
grant agreement or deed of donation, report the nature, amount and terms of such
assistance to both Houses of Congress and the President.
CASE DIGESTS
DAR v Sarangani Agricultural CO., Inc., G.R. No. 165547. January 24,
2007
FACTS:
Respondents are the owners of the lands in question which have been
reclassified from agricultural into non-agricultural uses by virtue of a municipal
zoning ordinance, and are included in the comprehensive land use plan of the
Municipality of Alabel.
The Province of Sarangani was created pursuant to Republic Act No. 7228 on
March 16, 1992, composed of seven (7) municipalities
the Municipality of Alabel was made the capital of the new province where the
capitol building and all other national and provincial offices shall be
established
On January 30, 1998, pursuant to Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 08, Series
of 1997, and to accelerate the development and urbanization of Alabel, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passed Resolution No. 98-03 reclassifying
lots that were located within the built-up areas, based on the 1995-2005
Land Use Plan of the municipality, from agricultural to non-agricultural
uses
On March 2, 1998, the SangguniangPanlalawigan of Saranganiapproved the
said Resolution.
A portion of the area involving 376.5424 hectares, however, was covered
by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) commercial
farms deferment scheme
The Zoning Certification issued by the office of the Municipal Planning and
Development Council (MPDC) showed that respondents' properties
located at Barangay Maribulan, Alabel were among those reclassified
from agricultural and pasture land to residential, commercial
institutional, light industrial and open space in the 1995-2005 land use
plan of Alabel.
On July 2, 1998, respondent Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI)
filed an application for land use conversion of the following parcels of land
with an aggregate area of 1,005 hectares
members of the Sarangani Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc.
(SARBAI) sent a letter-petition to the DAR Secretary opposing the application
for land use conversion filed by SACI. SARBAI alleged that its members were
merely forced to sign the waiver of rights, considering that the commercial
farm deferment period ended on June 15, 1998. Later, an "Urgent Petition
for the Denial of Land Use Conversion Application of Banana
Commercial Farm of SACI" was filed by SARBAI and was received by the
PARC Secretariat on July 14, 1999.
DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied SACI's application for land use
conversion
Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied by
the Court of Appeals in a Resolution
ISSUE:
WON DAR should use the comprehensive land use plans and
accompanying ordinance of the local sanggunian as primary reference
so as not to defeat the very purpose of the local government unit (lgu)
concerned in reclassifying certain areas to achieve social and economic
benefits in pursuance to its mandate towards the general welfare
HELD:
Yes.
DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997, or the Omnibus Rules and
Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural
Uses prescribes the guidelines for land use conversion:
VI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the City of Cebu can appeal from the decision of the Board of
Assessment Appeals.
HELD:
Yes, the City of Cebu constitutes a political body corporate created by a
special charter (Commonwealth Act No. 58), endowed with the powers which pertain
to a municipal corporation. As such, it possesses the capacity to sue and be sued. It
is authorized to levy real estate taxes for its support. For instance, Section 75 of its
charter provides, "One-fourth of all moneys realized from the real estate tax herein
provided for shall be devoted exclusively to the support of free public primary
schools of the City, and to the erection and maintenance of suitable school
buildings."
In the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Cebu City exempting
the lots in question from the payment of real property tax, no entity is more adversely
affected than the City of Cebu, for it stands to lose a yearly income equivalent to the
realty tax: seven-eighths of one per centum on the assessed value of said lots.
As to the personality of the Municipal Board to represent the City of Cebu in
this suit, Sec. 58 of Commonwealth Act No. 58 expressly vests in the Municipal
Board the authority to appeal from the decision of the City Assessor to the Board of
Assessment Appeals. This indicates legislative intent to lodge in the Municipal Board
the right to represent the City in an appeal from an adverse decision of the Board of
Assessment Appeals.
Irene Sto. Domingo, widow and together with her minor children were the
respondents in this case. When Irenes husband died, it was buried in a memorial lot
in North Cemetery in manila which they leased (for 50 years) from the city
government. By virtue of an Administrative Order issued by then City Mayor, they
exhumed the remains of the decedent, placed it in a bag and then store it in a
warehouse together with the other thousands of bags without informing the family.
On one all souls day, Irene and the family was dismayed on what they found out.
The said lot was leased to another. Upon confrontation with the cemetery, they were
asked to look for the remains of their decedent in the warehouse.
The city alleged that North Cemetery is exclusively used for public purpose.
Since the city is a political subdivision, it cannot be sued for acts committed by its
employees in the performance of their governmental functions.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Thus in Torio v. Fontanilla, supra, the Court declared that with respect to
proprietary functions the settled rule is that a municipal corporation can be held liable
to third persons ex contractu (Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, et al., 21 Phil.
184 (1912) or ex delicto (Mendoza v. de Leon, 33 Phil. 508 (1916).
The court also added..while the following are corporate or proprietary in character,
viz: municipal waterworks, slaughter houses, markets, stables, bathing
establishments, wharves, ferries and fisheries. Maintenance of parks, golf courses,
cemeteries and airports among others, are also recognized as municipal or city
activities of a proprietary character.
With the acts of dominion, there is, therefore no doubt that the North
Cemetery is within the class of property which the City of Manila owns in its
proprietary or private character. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the burial lot
was leased in favor of the private respondents. Hence, obligations arising from
contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties. Thus a lease
contract executed by the lessor and lessee remains as the law between them.
(Henson v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 11 [1 987]). Therefore, a breach
of contractual provision entitles the other party to damages even if no penalty for
such breach is prescribed in the contract. (Boysaw v. Interphil Promotions, Inc., 148
SCRA 635 [1987]).
Under the doctrine of respondent superior, (Torio v. Fontanilla, supra), petitioner City
of Manila is liable for the tortious act committed by its agents who failed to verify and
check the duration of the contract of lease.
Later, the OIC mayor of Caloocan caused the demolition of the said stalls.
The said vendors applied for preliminary injunction (which was granted by the court)
to discontinue such demolition. However, the injunction was later lifted. When
Mayor Asistio later on sat as the Mayor, he did not pursue the clearing operations.
Dacanay, a concerned citizen, then wrote a letter saying that there was an
illegally-constructed wall stalls in Heroes street and such stalls must be demolished.
After several follow-ups, no response was made by the city hall. He sought the help
of the then president Aquino but his letter was referred to the city of Caloocan. The
City secretary informed the president that they are still studying whether or not to
pursue the clearing operations.
Dacanay then filed a complaint in the Ombudsman against Asistio and the
City engineer. The latter said that due to the large number of affected people, it
would be harsh and inhuman for them to pursue the clearing operations considering
also that relocation is not an easy task.
ISSUE:
HELD:
No.
There is no doubt that the disputed areas from which the private respondents
market stalls are sought to be evicted are public streets, A public street is property
for public use hence outside the commerce of man (Arts. 420, 424. Civil Code).
Being outside the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of lease or other
contract
As the stallholders pay fees to the City Government for the right to occupy
portions of the public street, the City Government, contrary to law, has been leasing
portions of the streets to them. Such leases or licenses are null and void for being
contrary to law.
The Executive Order issued by Acting Mayor Robles authorizing the use of
Heroes del 96 Street as a vending area for stallholders who were granted licenses
by the city government contravenes the general law that reserves city streets and
roads for public use. Mayor Robles Executive Order may not infringe upon the
vested right of the public to use city streets for the purpose they were intended to
serve: i.e., as arteries of travel for vehicles and pedestrians. As early as 1989, the
public respondents had started to look for feasible alternative sites for flea markets.
They have had more than ample time to relocate the street vendors.
FACTS:
1. The City Council of Calamba (City Council), where petitioner was a member,
issued Resolution No. 115, Series of 2001 which authorized Mayor Lajara to
negotiate with landowners within the vicinity of Barangays Real, Halang, and
Uno, for a new city hall site. During the public hearing, the choice for the new
city hall site was limited to properties owned by Pamana and a lot in Barangay
Saimsin, Calamba.
2. The City Council then passed Resolution No. 280, Series of 2001, authorizing
Mayor Lajara to purchase several lots owned by Pamana with a total area of
55,190 square meters for the price of P129,017,600.Mayor Lajara was also
authorized to execute, sign and deliver the required documents.
3. The City Government of Calamba (Calamba City), through Mayor Lajara,
entered into the following agreements: MOA, Deed of Sale, Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage and Deed of Assignment of Internal Revenue Allotment
(IRA).
4. The above documents were subsequently endorsed to the City Council.
Petitioner alleged that all these documents were not ratified by the City
Council, a fact duly noted by the Commission on Audit.
5. Petitioner questioned the lack of ratification by the City Council of the
contracts.
6. The respondents justified the absence of ratification by the City Council of the
MOA, Deed of Sale, Deed of Mortgage, and Deed of Assignment. They cited
Section 22of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160) which spoke of prior authority
and not ratification. Respondents pointed out that petitioner did not deny the
fact that Mayor Lajara was given prior authority to negotiate and sign the
subject contracts. In fact, it was petitioner who made the motion to enact
Resolution No. 280.
7. The Ombudsman explained that ratification by the City Council was not a
condition sine qua non for the local chief executive to enter into contracts on
behalf of the city. The law requires prior authorization from the City Council
and in this case, Resolution Nos. 115 and 280 were the City Councils stamp
of approval and authority for Mayor Lajara to purchase the subject lots.
ISSUE:
Whether all the documents pertaining to the purchase of the lots should bear the
ratification by the City Council of Calamba.
HELD:
Ratification by the City Council is not a condition sine qua non for the local
chief executive to enter into contracts on behalf of the city. The law requires prior
authorization from the City Council and in this case, Resolution No. 280 is the City
Councils stamp of approval and authority for Mayor Lajara to purchase the subject
lots.
Section 455, Title III of RA 7160 enumerates the powers, duties, and
compensation of the Chief Executive. Specifically, it states that:
x xx
(vi) Represent the city in all its business transactions and sign in
its behalf all bonds, contracts, and obligations, and such other
documents upon authority of the sangguniangpanlungsod or
pursuant to law or ordinance; (Boldfacing and underscoring
supplied)
Clearly, when the local chief executive enters into contracts, the law speaks of
prior authorization or authority from the SangguniangPanlungsod and not ratification.
It cannot be denied that the City Council issued Resolution No. 280 authorizing
Mayor Lajara to purchase the subject lots.
As aptly pointed out by the Ombudsman, ratification by the City Council is not
a condition sine qua non for Mayor Lajara to enter into contracts. With the resolution
issued by the SangguniangPanlungsod, it cannot be said that there was evident bad
faith in purchasing the subject lots. The lack of ratification alone does not
characterize the purchase of the properties as one that gave unwarranted benefits to
Pamana or Prudential Bank or one that caused undue injury to Calamba City.