G.R. No. 191531 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, VS. HEIRS OF CECILIO AND MOISES CUIZON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, directed PEZA to file its Comment. [13] On 14 October 2008, the Office of the President rendered a decision directing PEZA to recognize respondents rights over the subject parcels and to negotiate for the just compensation claimed by the latter. [14] PEZAs motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied for lack of merit in the 9 March 2009 Resolution issued in the case. [15] On 1 April 2009, the Office of the Solicitor General ( OSG ), in representation of PEZA, filed with the CA a motion for an extension of fifteen days or until 16 April 2009 within which to file a petition for review under Rule 43. [16] Instead of the OSG, however, it was the lawyers from PEZAs Legal Affairs Group who, on 16 April 2009, filed the Rule 43 petition for review which was docketed before the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 108085. [17] Served with a copy thereof, respondents moved for the denial of the petition on the ground, among others, that PEZAs lawyers failed to state the material dates [18] and to secure authorization from the OSG as the principal law officer and legal defender of the government. [19] Directed to do so in the CAs 2 July 2009 Resolution, [20] respondents filed their 4 August 2009 Comment reiterating their objections to and praying for the dismissal of the petition. [21] In its 7 September 2009 reply, however, PEZA asserted, that as members of its Legal Affairs Group, its lawyers not only had legal authority to file the petition but were constrained to do so on account of the different position taken by the handling OSG lawyers. [22] On 30 October 2009, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision, dismissing PEZAs petition on the ground that its lawyers had no authority to file the same absent showing that they were so authorized under the PEZA Charter, Republic Act No. 7916 [23] and that they were duly deputized by the OSG. The CA ruled that, as the statutory counsel of the government, its agencies and officials who are in the performance of their official functions, the OSG is the only law firm, save those for the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, who can represent the government to the exclusion of others. Brushing aside PEZAs claim of a stand contrary to that taken by the OSG, the CA likewise enunciated that the OSG is endowed with broad perspective that spans the legal interest of virtually the entire government officialdom and may transcend the parochial concerns of a particular client agency and instead, promote and protect the public weal. [24] Aggrieved, PEZA filed a motion for reconsideration [25] which was duly opposed by respondents. [26] On 18 January 2010, the OSG filed a manifestation informing the CA that it differed with PEZA only with respect to the remedy to be taken from the 14 October 2008 decision in O.P. Case No. 07-C-081. While it was in accord with the substance of the petition, the OSG maintained that, as opposed to the Rule 43 petition for review filed by PEZA, it believed that a m