In a dispute over a reclamation project for the San Fernando, La Union port, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a government entity’s appeal was filed on time. The core of the legal matter was whether serving a court decision to the government entity’s legal services department, instead of directly to the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) which it claimed as its lead counsel, effectively started the appeal period. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that service to either the legal services department or the OGCC was valid. Although the OGCC was the primary legal advisor, the special power of attorney granted to both departments meant service to one was service to both. This decision clarifies how government entities must handle court notices and ensures appeals are filed within the proper timeframes.

Service Snafu: When Does the Clock Start Ticking for Government Appeals?

The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) entered into a contract for the construction of Pier 2 and a rock causeway in San Fernando, La Union with Sargasso Construction & Development Corp., Pick & Shovel, Inc., and Atlantic Erectors, Inc. (joint venture). Later, the PPA considered a separate reclamation project and, instead of conducting a public bidding, negotiated with the same joint venture. After some back and forth on pricing and conditions, the PPA General Manager issued a Notice of Award to the joint venture, contingent on completing the installation of rubber dock fenders. This award, however, was later rejected by the PPA Board of Directors, citing a lack of basis for awarding the contract through negotiation.

Consequently, the joint venture filed a complaint for specific performance, seeking to compel the PPA to execute a supplemental contract based on the Notice of Award. The PPA countered that no contract was perfected because its Board rejected the proposed agreement. After trial, the court ruled in favor of the joint venture. However, the PPA, attempting to appeal, faced a setback when the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed its appeal as having been filed late.

The central issue revolved around the service of the trial court’s decision. The PPA claimed it received the decision on June 22, 1998, through its Legal Services Department, but argued that because the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) was its lead counsel, the period to appeal should only commence upon service to the OGCC, which never occurred. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. It noted that the PPA had executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) appointing both the OGCC and its own Legal Services Department as its counsel. Building on this principle, service to either was deemed sufficient under Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. This rule states that if a party has appeared by counsel, service shall be made upon counsel or one of them.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that despite the OGCC’s role as principal law office for government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs), the PPA, through the OGCC, had admitted in its appellate brief that it received the decision on June 22, 1998. In legal proceedings, such an admission is binding and can only be contradicted by showing a palpable mistake, which was not established here. Because the appeal was based on a trial date found to be more than the mandated period, the initial appeal was properly dismissed by the Court of Appeals for having been filed out of time.

Nevertheless, acknowledging the significance of the legal issues involved, including the potential for an irregular award of a government project without public bidding, and both parties had already filed briefs to the CA, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion. It decided to relax the procedural rules and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for resolution on its merits, in order to determine questions related to both law and fact. The failure to conduct a bidding was against public interest and to determine such the court allowed an extension of appeal.

It’s also important to consider the repercussions of such decisions in related legal spheres, as was noted by Justice Tinga’s separate opinion. Justice Tinga emphasizes the role of the OGCC as primary legal counsel to GOCCs and the right to service.

“By force of the Administrative Code, the OGCC is the lead counsel of all GOCCs and no agreement or arrangement entered into by, or any act or omission of, the OGCC can alter the set-up… the participation of the OGCC in litigation involving GOCCs is indispensable; and its role in such litigation primary, to the exclusion of other collaborating counsels.”

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether service of a court decision to the PPA’s Legal Services Department, rather than directly to the OGCC, was sufficient to start the appeal period. The Supreme Court ruled that it was, given the Special Power of Attorney granted to both.
Who was the lead counsel for PPA?	While the OGCC typically acts as the lead counsel for GOCCs, in this case, the PPA had authorized both the OGCC and its Legal Services Department as its legal representatives via a Special Power of Attorney.
Why was the appeal initially dismissed?	The Court of Appeals dismissed the PPA’s appeal because it was filed beyond the reglementary period, calculated from the date the Legal Services Department received the trial court’s decision.
Did the Supreme Court ultimately reinstate the appeal?	Yes, the Supreme Court, recognizing the importance of the legal issues involved (particularly the lack of public bidding), relaxed the procedural rules and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merits.
What is a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)?	A Special Power of Attorney is a legal document that authorizes a person or entity to act on behalf of another in specific matters. In this case, it authorized both the OGCC and PPA’s Legal Services Department to represent the PPA.
What is the role of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC)?	The OGCC serves as the principal law office for all government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) in the Philippines, providing legal advice and representation.
Why is public bidding important in government contracts?	Public bidding promotes transparency and fairness in government procurement processes. It helps ensure that the government obtains the best value for its money and minimizes the risk of corruption.
What does it mean to remand a case?	To remand a case means to send it back to a lower court (in this case, the Court of Appeals) for further proceedings, such as resolving the substantive issues raised in the appeal.
Why was the case considered to involve “public interest”?	Because the Supreme Court said, and the case touches upon principles of government contracting, specifically relating to the use of public bidding processes which affects taxpayers money.

This case serves as a reminder to government entities and their legal counsel to carefully observe procedural rules, especially regarding service of court notices and deadlines for appeals. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to these rules, while also acknowledging the need for flexibility in certain cases where substantial justice and public interest are at stake. The case should remind Government Offices to immediately serve to the OGCC decisions and other court action matters for record, calendar and action to not lapse legal requirements.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY vs. SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORP., G.R. No. 146478, July 30, 2004