On October 2, 1992, the petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the APT as its trustee, and "G" Holdings culminated in the execution of a purchase and sale agreement. Under the agreement, the Republic undertook to sell and deliver 90% of the entire issued and outstanding shares of MMC, as well as its company notes, to "G" Holdings in consideration of the purchase price of ₱673,161,280. It also provided for a down payment of ₱98,704,000 with the balance divided into four tranches payable in installment over a period of ten years.
Subsequently, a disagreement on the matter of when the installment payments should commence arose between the parties. The Republic claimed that it should be on the seventh month from the signing of the agreement while "G" Holdings insisted that it should begin seven months after the fulfillment of the closing conditions.
Unable to settle the issue, "G" Holdings filed a complaint for specific performance and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, against the Republic to compel it to close the sale in accordance with the purchase and sale agreement. RTC ordered the plaintiff to pay the balance simultaneously with the delivery of the Deed of Transfer and actual delivery of the shares and notes.
The Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the Republic on June 28, 1996. Contrary to the rules of procedure, however, the notice of appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals (CA), not with the trial court which rendered the judgment appealed from. Finding that the grounds necessary for the annulment of judgment were inexistent, the appellate court dismissed the petition. It ruled that there was no extrinsic fraud because "G" Holdings had no participation in the failure of the Solicitor General to properly appeal the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction which resulted in the nullity of the trial court's jurisdiction.
HELD:
No. Before anything else, we note that the instant petition suffers from a basic infirmity for lack of the requisite imprimatur from the Office of the Solicitor General, hence, it is dismissible on that ground. The general rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and that actions filed in the name of the Republic, or its agencies and instrumentalities for that matter, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, should be summarily dismissed. As an exception to the general rule, the Solicitor General is empowered to "deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their respective offices, brought before the courts and exercise supervision and control over such legal officers with respect to such cases.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction which resulted in the nullity of the trial court's jurisdiction.
HELD:
No. Before anything else, we note that the instant petition suffers from a basic infirmity for lack of the requisite imprimatur from the Office of the Solicitor General, hence, it is dismissible on that ground. The general rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and that actions filed in the name of the Republic, or its agencies and instrumentalities for that matter, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, should be summarily dismissed. As an exception to the general rule, the Solicitor General is empowered to "deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their respective offices, brought before the courts and exercise supervision and control over such legal officers with respect to such cases.
Here, the petition was signed and filed on behalf of the Republic by Atty. Raul B. Villanueva, the executive officer of the legal department of the APT, and Atty. Rhoel Z. Mabazza. However, they did not present any proof that they had been duly deputized by the Solicitor General to initiate and litigate this action. Thus, this petition can be dismissed on that ground.
