URBANO v CHAVEZ; CO v RTC PASIG/CHAVEZ (n: Chavez was SolGen) Facts: There were two consolidated cases in this

petition where the main issue was the power of the OSG to represent a public officer/employee in the PI of a criminal action against him or in a civil action for damages against him. o GR 87997: Criminal case v. Sec. Luis Santos of Dept. of Local Government plus sectoral reps of Tangub:: violation of RA 3019, filed at Ombudsman. OSG through resp Chavez appeared as counsel for PI. Petitioners seek to enjoin OSG from acting as counsel. Reason: May conflict with role as appellate counsel for PP. OSG reply: Anti Graft League v Ortega and SolGoel v Garrido resolved issue in their favour. o GR 88578: Civil case for damages v. Chavez, Businessworld, Raul Locsin, and one John Doe, filed in RTC Pasig. Defendant allegedly made malicious publications v. petitioner (Marcos connections). Businessworld and Locsin filed joint motion to dismiss. OSG files motion to dismiss in behalf of Chavez. Petitioner, during oral argument, objected to appearance of the OSG on behalf of Chavez. Trial court suspended proceedings and instructed parties to submit positions on the propriety of the appearance of the OSG in place of the SolGen. Petitioner: Sued SolGen for acts committed outside of authority; cannot be represented by OSG in the civil suit. OSG: Objection is afterthought. OSG may represent any public official even if official sued in personal capacity pursuant to PD 478 and the pronouncements in Anti-Graft League. Also contended that his acts were for acts in official capacity; public officials assumed acting in regular performance. Also, claimed that public policy militates against DQ. Fear that public officials cannot act without being hailed by almost anybody + trouble of hiring private lawyer Petitioner: Article was not in official function; jurisprudence opposes contention. TC denied petition.

Issues: 1. WON the OSG may represent the SolGen in these two cases. NO! Held/Ratio: - Note: Petitioners raise pure questions of law since there are no evidentiary matters to be evaluated. All that was being asked is the interpretation of the facts and law. If multiple cases raise the same pure question of law, they may be consolidated. 1. No, it may not.

a. PD 478 states that the OSG may 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. i. SolGen argues that the PD did not make any distinction as to the kind of litigation. For as long as the OSG represents the Govt, it may do so. ii. The said rule is actually qualified by Anti-Graft League and such qualification is reiterated in SolGen v Garrido: While the RAC makes no distinction as to the case, the court emphasized that where the investigation results in an information v. the public official, then that official may no longer be represented by the OSG. 1. PI: Assurance against timidity 2. Information filed: Conflict of duty iii. When does this conflict happen? In the appellate stage, when the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People. iv. Further, it would be absurd to expect the OSG to represent a public official committing acts in his private capacity; the State can do no wrong, but its actors can. b. Such prohibition is extended to civil suits.

ORTIGAS v. CA, BELMONTE Facts: Petitioners filed with MTC San Mateo a case on unlawful detainer against the respondent. The case was resolved in favour the petitioner, ordering the defendants to vacate the lots, pay rentals and attorneys fees, and forfeit improvements in favour of the petitioners. Respondent filed with CFI Rizal a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 11, Rule 40). Motion denied and affirmed MTC judgment. Respondent then filed a notice of appeal with CFI Rizal and with CA a motion to extend period for review. CA granted extension; respondent then filed petition for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction: assailed jurisdiction of courts and the writ of execution. CA set aside MTC and CFI decisions (no jurisdiction).

Issues:

1. Whether or not the MTC and CFI had jurisdiction over the case. Held/Ratio: 1. No, they did not. a. Jurisdiction and propriety of pleadings are purely legal in nature. Sec. 17 of RA 296 granted the SC exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases with purely legal questions. i. Effect: CA had no jurisdiction. Must set aside CA decision. b. SC can still review in spite of erroneous elevation to the CA under Sec. 31 of the Judiciary Act. c. The case was not a mere case of unlawful detainer; it also involved questions of ownership. This puts it within the jurisdiction of the CFI, and not the MTC. i. This nulls the MTC decision. ii. As to the CFI decision, it should also be annulled as what was questioned was jurisdiction of the courts, putting it outside the exception in the Rules of Court. d. Still, Ortigas may still file action in the proper court.

JOSEFA v. ZHANDONG Facts: Respondent corporation filed a complaint for a sum of money in the RTC Quezon City. Complaint alleged that Zhandong imports and sells hardboards/staple boards and other merchandise. o Its president met Tan, who referred petitioner as a client (Tan was a supplier of petitioner). Relying on Tans assurance that petitioner was a good customer and owned a construction supply store, respondent, on various dates in Feb-Apr 1996, sold and delivered 313 crates of boards valued P4.56 million, payable within 60 days from date of delivery. o Petitioner, instead of paying Zhandong, remitted payments to Tan. Tan delivered the checks to Zhandong; these checks turned out to be bounced. o When respondent confronted Tan, he tried to issue his own checks. These stopped at some point; some bounced. o On demand, the petitioners and Tan did not reply. - Petitioners reply: transacted with Tan and paid obligations to him. Not privy to agreement between Tan and respondent. Claimed paying Tan in full. - TC ruled in favour of respondent. No evidence shows that petitioner purchased the items from Tan; cannot claim that Zhandong was not the seller. CA affirmed. Issues: Whether or not the petitioner directly dealt with the respondent corporation. NO! Held/Ratio: 1. - Petitioners question the nature of the transaction (facts), which respondents object to because it raises a question of fact that cannot be questioned on appeal - This case makes a discussion on exceptions to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in certiorari to the Supreme Court. These are: 1. conclusions grounded on speculations, surmises, conjectures 2. inferences are manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible 3. GAD 4. judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts 5. findings of fact are conflicting 6. no citation of specific evidence on which factual conclusions are based 7. finding of absence of facts is contradicted by presence of evidence on record 8. findings of CA are contrary to those of trial court 9. CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion 10. findings of CA are beyond the issues of the case 11. findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties - Evidence and cross-examination showed that Tan negotiated with the petitioner, and ordered the items from Zhandong (to be resold to the petitioner). This was found out by cross-examination of the president of Zhandong (checks not really from respondents). - Tan, as it turned out, represented himself to be the owner of the merchandise, and he had no reason to believe otherwise as she dealt with him in the past. He only knew of the respondent upon receipt of the demand letter. -

- This makes the case reviewable under (9). - It was found out that some of the receipts were not under Zhandong, but under a brokerage company. Further, the delivery receipts did not mention the price of hardboards and terms of payment. These gravitate against the existence of a contract of sale. - Effect: Obligation of petitioner is with Tan, but as Tans checks all bounced, the respondent may file action against Tan.