7/29/2019 Monet Guilatco vs City of Dagupan2
1/2
Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan
FACTS: Guilatco, a Court Interpreter, was about to board a
tricycle at a sidewalk at Perez Boulevard
when she accidentally fell into a manhole causing her right leg
to be fractured. Perez Boulevard is a
National Road under the control and supervision of City of
Dagupan. Such manhole is partially covered
by a flowerpot leaving a gaping hole about two (2) feet wide.
She was hospitalized, operated on andconfined. She had been
deprived of income. She sued the City of Dagupan for damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not control or supervision over a National
road by the City of Dagupan exists which
makes the City liable under Art. 2189
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the control and supervision
of the national road exists and is
provided for in the charter of Dagupan. It provided that the
laying out, construction and improvement
of streets avenues and alleys and sidewalks, and regulation of
the use thereof, may be legislated by the
Municipal Board. Such control and supervision is exercised thru
the City Engineer Tangco, who aside
form his official capacity as City Engineer, was also Ex Officio
Highway Engineer, EX officio City Engineer
of Bureau of Public works, and Building official and received
compensation for these functions.
The function of supervision over streets, public buildings and
public works pertaining thru the City
Engineer is coursed through a Maintenance Foreman and a
Maintenance Engineer. Although these two
officials are employees of the national government, they are
detailed with the City of Dagupan and
hence received instruction and supervision from the City throu
the City Engineer.
Hence the City is liable.
PROVINCE FO CEBU vs. IAC, et. al.
FACTS: While the incumbent Espina was an official business in
Manila, the vice Governor Almendras and
three members of the Provincial Board enacted a resolution
donating to the City of Cebu an area over
380 hectares.
Upon his return, governor Espina, officers and members of Cebu
Mayors League along with some tax
payers including Atty. Garcia, filed a case against the City of
Cebu City Mayor Sergio Osmena and Cebu
Provincial officials responsible for the donation of the
province-owned lot.
The donated lot were to be sold by the City of Cebu to raise
funds.
Subsequently, the Court dismissed the case. After the City of
Cebu announced the sale of the lots,
Governor Espina engaged the services of respondent Garcia for
the annulment of the deed of donation.
The Provincial Board passed a resolution authorizing the
Provincial attorney, Baguio, to enter his
appearance for the Province of Cebu and for the incumbent
Governor, vice Governor and members of
the Provincial Board in this case. However, a compromise
agreement was reached between the parties.
7/29/2019 Monet Guilatco vs City of Dagupan2
2/2
Atty. Garcia filed a notice of Attorneys Lien for his services
rendered, praying that his statement of
claim of attorneys lien be entered upon the records. Province of
Cebu opposed the payment of
Attorneys fees for being contrary to law.
HELD:
Collaboration of a private law firm with the fiscal and the
municipal attorney is not allowed.
Section 163 of the Revised Administrative Code provinces that
the Provincial fiscal shall represent the
province and any municipality. When the Provincial fiscal is
disqualified to serve any municipality or
other political subdivision of a province, a special attorney
may be employed by its council. The
Municipalitys authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly
limited only to situations where the
Provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it.
