ASG Law

Tag: Local Government Liability

  • Government Contracts: When is a City Liable for Breach? Muntinlupa Skywalk Case

    Liability for Government Contracts: The City Can Be on the Hook, Not Just Officials

    G.R. No. 234680, June 10, 2024

    Imagine a business invests heavily in a project with a local government, only to have the rug pulled out from under them due to a change in administration. Who is responsible for the losses? This case, City of Muntinlupa vs. N.C. Tavu and Associates Corporation, sheds light on when a city government, rather than individual officials, can be held liable for breaching a build-operate-transfer (BOT) agreement. The Supreme Court clarifies the complexities of cross-claims, official capacity suits, and the importance of due process in government contracts.

    The Legal Framework of BOT Agreements and Government Liability

    Build-operate-transfer (BOT) agreements are crucial for infrastructure development, allowing private companies to finance, construct, and operate public projects before transferring them to the government. These agreements are governed primarily by Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by RA 7718, which aims to encourage private sector participation in infrastructure development. Understanding the liability of local government units (LGUs) within these agreements is critical.

    The principle of immunity from suit generally protects the government from liability without its consent. However, this immunity is not absolute. When an LGU enters into a proprietary contract, one for its own private benefit and not for the purpose of governing, it may be deemed to have waived its immunity. Furthermore, RA 6957, as amended, explicitly provides for instances where the government can be held liable for damages arising from BOT projects.

    Section 11 of RA 6957, as amended, states:

    “Section 11. Direct Government Guarantee. — To assure the viability of the project, the government, through the appropriate agency, may provide direct government guarantee. x x x The government may also provide direct guarantee on the repayment of the loan directly contracted by the project proponent.”

    This provision implies that the government can be held accountable to ensure project viability, which may include liability for damages if the project fails due to the government’s actions.

    The Muntinlupa Skywalk Saga: A Case of Broken Promises?

    N.C. Tavu and Associates Corporation (NCTAC) proposed the “Muntinlupa Skywalk Project” to the City of Muntinlupa under a BOT agreement. The project aimed to create an elevated pedestrian walkway system in Alabang. After securing endorsements and approvals, including a Notice of Award, NCTAC and the City executed a BOT agreement in December 2006.

    However, the project stalled due to ongoing repairs at the project site. Then, a new mayor took office and recommended the nullification of the award to NCTAC. Subsequently, the Sanggunian (City Council) passed Resolution No. 07-055, authorizing the mayor to pursue a similar project with another contractor, without formally cancelling the agreement with NCTAC. Adding insult to injury, the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) constructed its own pedestrian overpass in the same area, rendering NCTAC’s project unfeasible.

    NCTAC sued the City, the Mayor, the City Administrator, and the Sanggunian, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The RTC ruled in favor of NCTAC, declaring Resolution No. 07-055 void and ordering the City to pay damages. The City appealed, arguing that the individual officials should be held personally liable.

    The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the following key issues were considered:

    • Whether the City of Muntinlupa, rather than its individual officials, should be held liable for damages.
    • Whether the City’s claim against its officials constituted a cross-claim.
    • Whether the officials were sued in their official or personal capacities.

    The Supreme Court, quoting the CA’s decision, emphasized the explicit provisions of RA 6957:

    “The CA found that although the Project was an exercise of governmental function since it was intended for public advantage and benefit, the City of Muntinlupa can still be held liable for damages since RA 6957, as amended, expressly made it so. As such, the City of Muntinlupa cannot invoke its immunity from suit.”

    The Court also highlighted the importance of establishing bad faith or malice to hold public officials personally liable, stating that:

    “Juxtaposed with Article 32 of the Civil Code, the principle may now translate into the rule that an individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages on account of an act or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in a particular wrong or injury to the former.”

    Practical Implications for Businesses and LGUs

    This case underscores the importance of clear and formal contract termination procedures in BOT agreements. LGUs cannot simply abandon existing contracts without facing potential liability. The ruling also emphasizes the need for businesses to conduct thorough due diligence on the financial and political stability of the LGU they are contracting with. Furthermore, the case highlights the critical distinction between suing public officials in their official versus personal capacities.

    Key Lessons:

    • LGUs can be held liable for breaching BOT agreements, especially when the agreement involves proprietary functions.
    • Claims against co-parties (like city officials) must be properly raised as cross-claims during the initial stages of litigation.
    • To hold public officials personally liable, they must be sued in their personal capacity, and evidence of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence must be presented.

    Hypothetical: A construction firm enters into a BOT agreement with a municipality to build a public market. A new mayor comes into power and decides to prioritize a different project, effectively halting the market construction. Based on the Muntinlupa Skywalk case, the municipality could be held liable for damages if it fails to formally terminate the BOT agreement and compensate the construction firm for its incurred expenses.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: Can a city government be sued?

    A: Yes, a city government can be sued, especially when it enters into proprietary contracts or when specific laws waive its immunity from suit.

    Q: What is a cross-claim?

    A: A cross-claim is a claim by one party against a co-party in a lawsuit, arising from the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original action.

    Q: How can I hold a public official personally liable for damages?

    A: To hold a public official personally liable, you must sue them in their personal capacity and prove that they acted with bad faith, malice, or gross negligence.

    Q: What is a BOT agreement?

    A: A BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) agreement is a contractual arrangement where a private company finances, constructs, and operates a public project for a specified period before transferring it to the government.

    Q: What should I do if a government breaches a contract with my company?

    A: Consult with a lawyer immediately to assess your legal options and ensure you take the necessary steps to protect your rights, including documenting all incurred expenses and communications.

    Q: What is the significance of RA 6957, as amended by RA 7718?

    A: These laws govern BOT agreements in the Philippines, promoting private sector participation in infrastructure projects and outlining the legal framework for such partnerships.

    Q: What does it mean to sue someone in their “official capacity”?

    A: Suing someone in their official capacity means the lawsuit is against the office they hold, rather than against them personally. Any damages awarded are typically paid by the government entity they represent.

    Q: What happens if the project is cancelled because of an external event?

    A: The government may still be liable for damages, particularly if the cancellation was due to actions or decisions within its control or if provisions for such events are included in the contract.

    ASG Law specializes in government contracts and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Forged Donation: Municipality Liable for Taking Private Land Without Just Compensation

    In Municipality of Sta. Maria, Bulacan v. Buenaventura, the Supreme Court held that a municipality was liable for taking private land to construct a road based on a forged deed of donation. The Court found the local government liable for just compensation, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees due to the unlawful taking. This case clarifies the responsibility of local governments to ensure the validity of property transfers and respect private property rights, reinforcing protections against unlawful expropriation.

    Building Roads on False Foundations: When a Forged Deed Leads to Municipal Liability

    This case revolves around a parcel of land owned by Carlos A. Buenaventura in Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Without his consent, the Municipality of Sta. Maria, under Mayor Bartolome Ramos, constructed a road on a portion of his property. The municipality claimed they relied on a Deed of Donation purportedly signed by Buenaventura, which they believed transferred the land to Barangay Guyong. However, Buenaventura argued that his signature on the deed was forged, and he never donated the property.

    The legal battle began when Buenaventura filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against the municipality, its mayor, and members of the Sangguniang Bayan. The central issue was the validity of the Deed of Donation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the complaint, accepting the deed as valid until proven otherwise in a separate proceeding. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that Buenaventura’s signature was indeed forged, entitling him to damages and the removal of the road. The municipality then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court partly affirmed the CA’s decision but modified the remedy. The Court agreed that the signature on the Deed of Donation was a forgery, based on a visual comparison of signatures and the surrounding circumstances. The Court reiterated that forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, a burden that Buenaventura successfully discharged. The Court noted that a judge isn’t bound by handwriting experts but must conduct an independent examination.

    The Court referenced the case of Heirs of Spouses Mariano, et al. v. City of Naga, stating that recovery of possession may no longer be had as the return of the subject property is no longer feasible as a road has already been constructed thereon. Thus, in the higher interest of justice, in order to prevent irreparable injury that may result if the subject property were to be surrendered and the public would be prevented from having access to the road, payment of just compensation is warranted under the premises reckoned from the time of taking on April 11, 2002, the date when the petitioner took possession and constructed a road on the respondent’s property. In this case, because the road was already constructed and served a public purpose, the Court deemed it impractical to order its removal. Instead, it focused on ensuring Buenaventura received just compensation for the taking of his property.

    The Supreme Court addressed the issue of just compensation, rooted in the constitutional right to private property. The taking of private property for public use requires the payment of fair market value, ensuring the owner is not unjustly deprived. Furthermore, the Court awarded exemplary damages, recognizing the municipality’s bad faith in constructing the road based on a forged document. These damages serve as a deterrent against similar actions in the future, reinforcing the importance of due diligence and respect for property rights.

    To fully understand the basis for these remedies, we must consider key legal principles. The power of eminent domain, as enshrined in the Constitution and the Local Government Code, allows the government to expropriate private property for public use, but only with just compensation. In this case, the municipality attempted to circumvent this requirement by relying on a forged Deed of Donation. As the Court clarified, this act constituted an unlawful taking, triggering the right to just compensation and additional damages.

    The legal basis for damages is outlined in the Civil Code, particularly Article 2202, which discusses liability for damages arising from bad faith. In this case, the municipality’s reliance on the forged Deed of Donation demonstrated a lack of good faith, justifying the award of exemplary damages to Buenaventura. Similarly, the Court awarded attorney’s fees to compensate Buenaventura for the legal expenses he incurred in defending his property rights.

    Here are the relevant provisions of the Civil Code:

    Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows on the land of another in bad faith, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.

    The Supreme Court held that because the donation is ineffectual as the respondent’s signature therein is forged and spurious, the Court now determines the rights of the respondent. In this case, it is indubitable that there is taking of the respondent’s property by the petitioner.

    Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in Municipality of Sta. Maria, Bulacan v. Buenaventura underscores the importance of upholding property rights and ensuring governmental bodies act with due diligence and good faith. The case serves as a reminder that reliance on questionable documents or shortcuts to property acquisition can lead to significant legal and financial consequences. The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding private property against unlawful encroachment by government entities, reinforcing the rule of law and protecting individual rights.

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the Deed of Donation presented by the municipality was valid, or if it was a forgery. The Supreme Court ultimately determined the deed was forged.
    What did the Court decide regarding the Deed of Donation? The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, finding that the signature on the Deed of Donation was indeed a forgery. This determination was based on a visual comparison of the signatures.
    What remedies did the Court award to Buenaventura? The Court awarded just compensation for the taking of his property, exemplary damages due to the municipality’s bad faith, and attorney’s fees. The order to remove the road was deleted.
    Why didn’t the Court order the removal of the road? The Court recognized that the road served a public purpose and that its removal would cause significant disruption. Therefore, it deemed just compensation a more appropriate remedy.
    What is just compensation in this context? Just compensation refers to the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking, ensuring the owner is not unjustly deprived of their land. This is determined by the Regional Trial Court.
    What is the significance of exemplary damages? Exemplary damages are awarded to deter similar misconduct in the future. In this case, they were imposed due to the municipality’s bad faith reliance on a forged document.
    What does this case mean for local governments? This case emphasizes the importance of due diligence and good faith when acquiring property for public use. Local governments must verify the validity of property transfers and respect private property rights.
    Can a local government take private property for public use? Yes, but only through the power of eminent domain, which requires just compensation to be paid to the property owner. This case underscores the importance of lawful procedures in such cases.

    The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a critical reminder that local governments must exercise caution and diligence when dealing with private property. The ruling protects individual rights against unlawful expropriation and sets a precedent for fair compensation in similar cases. This case reinforces the legal framework that balances public interests with private property rights, ensuring justice and equity for all parties involved.

    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: Municipality of Sta. Maria, Bulacan v. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 191278, March 29, 2023

  • Liability for Excavation Accidents: Municipal Oversight on National Roads

    In Municipality of San Juan v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that a municipality can be liable for injuries resulting from excavations, even on national roads, if it fails to properly regulate and ensure public safety. This decision clarifies that a local government’s duty to protect its citizens extends beyond municipal roads, emphasizing the importance of active vigilance and precautionary measures to prevent accidents from hazards like open manholes and excavations. The ruling underscores the responsibility of municipalities to actively monitor and regulate activities that could pose a risk to public safety within their jurisdiction, regardless of the road’s classification.

    Santolan Road Hazard: Who Bears Responsibility for Public Safety?

    This case revolves around an accident on Santolan Road in San Juan, Metro Manila, where Laura Biglang-awa sustained injuries when the car she was riding in fell into an uncovered manhole. The excavation was part of a water service connection project undertaken by K.C. Waterworks System Construction (KC) for the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS). The central legal question is whether the Municipality of San Juan can be held liable for Biglang-awa’s injuries, given that the accident occurred on a national road and the excavation was conducted by a contractor working for a national agency. The decision hinges on the extent of the municipality’s responsibility to ensure public safety on all roads within its jurisdiction, irrespective of their classification.

    The Municipality of San Juan argued that its responsibility, as defined by Section 149(z) of the Local Government Code of 1983 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337), extends only to municipal roads. The Municipality cited:

    Section 149. Powers and Duties. – (1) The sangguniang bayan shall: (z) Provide for the construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of municipal streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, bridges, parks and other public places, and regulate the use thereof, and, and prohibit the construction or placing of obstacles or encroachments on them;

    It contended that since Santolan Road is a national road, it cannot be held liable for the accident. Furthermore, the Municipality pointed to Section 8 of Ordinance No. 82-01 of the Metropolitan Manila Commission, which stipulates that the permittee/excavator assumes full liability for injuries caused by non-completion of works or failure to adopt precautionary measures. However, the Supreme Court found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing that the municipality’s duty extends beyond the maintenance of municipal roads.

    The Supreme Court highlighted other relevant provisions within Section 149 of the Local Government Code, specifically Section 149(bb), which states:

    Section 149. Powers and Duties – (1) The sangguniang bayan shall: (bb) Regulate the drilling and excavation of the ground for the laying of gas, water, sewer, and other pipes; the building and repair of tunnels, sewers, drains and other similar structures; erecting of poles and the use of crosswalks, curbs and gutters therein, and adopt measures to ensure public safety against open canals, manholes, live wires and other similar hazards to life and property, and provide just compensation or relief for persons suffering from them;

    The Court interpreted the term “regulate” as granting the municipality the power of control or supervision over all excavations for the laying of pipes within its territory. This power is not limited to municipal roads but applies to all roads within the municipality’s jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the municipality’s liability arises from its failure to regulate these activities and ensure public safety, irrespective of whether the excavation is on a national or municipal road.

    The Supreme Court cited the principle established in City of Manila vs. Teotico, et al, stating that:

    At any rate, under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality have either “control or supervision” over said street or road. x x x

    This underscores that liability under Article 2189 of the Civil Code is based on control or supervision, not necessarily ownership. Thus, even though Santolan Road is a national road, the Municipality of San Juan’s power to regulate excavations within its territory makes it responsible for ensuring public safety.

    Moreover, the Court emphasized the municipality’s obligation to maintain the safe condition of roads within its territory, regardless of whether the excavation permit was issued by another government entity. Quoting the Court of Appeals decision, it stated that the Municipality cannot shirk from its obligation to maintain and ensure the safe condition of the road merely because the permit for the excavation may have been issued by a government entity or unit other than the Appellant San Juan or that the excavation may have been done by a contractor under contract with a public entity like the Appellee MWSS.

    The Court also noted that the municipality’s lack of knowledge of the excavation and the condition of the road is not a valid defense. The duty to maintain the safe condition of roads is a continuing one, and the municipality must exercise active vigilance to detect and address potential hazards. The Court further cited that: It is the duty of the municipal authorities to exercise an active vigilance over the streets; to see that they are kept in a reasonably safe condition for public travel. They cannot fold their arms and shut their eyes and say they have no notice.

    Finally, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 8 of Ordinance 82-01 does not exempt municipalities from liability for their negligent acts. While the ordinance makes the permittee/excavator liable for damages, it does not prevent the application of other relevant laws concerning the municipality’s liability for injuries caused by its negligence. The Court, therefore, affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding the Municipality of San Juan liable for Biglang-awa’s injuries.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Municipality of San Juan was liable for injuries sustained due to an uncovered manhole on a national road within its jurisdiction, despite the excavation being conducted by a contractor for a national agency.
    What was the Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court ruled that the Municipality of San Juan was liable because it had the power to regulate excavations within its territory and failed to ensure public safety, regardless of whether the road was national or municipal.
    What is the significance of Section 149 of the Local Government Code in this case? Section 149(bb) grants municipalities the power to regulate excavations and adopt measures to ensure public safety, which the Court interpreted as imposing a duty to oversee such activities, regardless of road classification.
    Does the municipality’s liability depend on ownership of the road? No, liability under Article 2189 of the Civil Code is based on control or supervision over the road, not necessarily ownership.
    Can the municipality claim lack of knowledge as a defense? No, the municipality has a continuing duty to maintain the safe condition of roads within its territory and must exercise active vigilance to detect and address potential hazards.
    Does Ordinance 82-01 exempt the municipality from liability? No, while the ordinance makes the permittee/excavator liable, it does not exempt the municipality from liability for its own negligent acts.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for municipalities? Municipalities must actively monitor and regulate excavations within their jurisdiction, regardless of road classification, to ensure public safety and prevent accidents.
    What is the effect of not implementing safety measures during excavations? The municipality can be held liable for damages resulting from injuries or accidents caused by the failure to implement safety measures during excavations.

    This case reinforces the critical role of local government units in ensuring public safety. Municipalities must proactively regulate activities that could pose risks to their citizens, even on national roads. This ruling emphasizes the need for constant vigilance and the implementation of precautionary measures to prevent accidents and protect the well-being of the community.

    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: THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 121920, August 09, 2005

  • Road Repair Responsibility: When Negligence Leads to Liability

    This Supreme Court case clarifies that local governments can be held liable for damages resulting from poorly maintained roads, even if there are no deaths or physical injuries involved. The ruling emphasizes the duty of local governments to ensure public safety by properly maintaining roads and providing adequate warning signs during repairs. Failure to do so constitutes negligence, making them liable for damages.

    Unmarked Digs and Damaged Cars: Who Pays When City Roads are Negligently Maintained?

    In Quezon City Government v. Fulgencio Dacara, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of liability arising from an accident caused by improperly marked road repairs. Fulgencio Dacara Jr. crashed his car into a pile of earth from street diggings in Quezon City at night. He sustained injuries, and the car was severely damaged. His father, Fulgencio P. Dacara Sr., sued the Quezon City government and Engineer Ramir J. Tiamzon for damages. The lower courts ruled in favor of Dacara, finding the city government negligent for failing to provide adequate warning signs.

    The Quezon City government appealed, arguing that they had taken necessary precautions and that Dacara Jr.’s negligence was the cause of the accident. They also contested the application of Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which holds local governments liable for damages due to defective conditions of public works. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the city government failed to present sufficient evidence of precautionary measures. This prompted the petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision regarding negligence but modified the award of damages. The Court reiterated the principle that its review is limited to errors of law and that factual findings of lower courts are generally conclusive. The Court emphasized that proximate cause is determined by examining the facts of each case using logic, common sense, policy, and precedent. The negligence of the Quezon City government was deemed the proximate cause of the accident because of the absence of warning devices at the excavation site.

    Regarding moral damages, the Court clarified that Article 2219(2) of the Civil Code allows for recovery of moral damages in quasi-delicts only if physical injuries result. In this case, although the son claimed to have been injured, no medical evidence was presented to substantiate the claim, and no other form of proof for damages were successfully provided.. Thus, the Supreme Court deleted the award of moral damages, stating that these damages are meant to compensate for actual suffering and must be supported by credible evidence.

    However, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of exemplary damages because the city government acted with gross negligence. Gross negligence is defined as a complete lack of care that raises a presumption of indifference to the probable consequences of carelessness. The absence of any warning devices despite the known danger constituted a reckless disregard for public safety. The Court highlighted that local governments have a paramount responsibility to protect the public and should be held accountable for their negligent acts. Therefore, exemplary damages were deemed appropriate as a deterrent for similar acts in the future.

    The Court addressed the city government’s argument that Fulgencio Jr. was speeding and thus contributorily negligent, stating that the argument was not raised during the trial but rather belatedly raised in a motion for reconsideration. The Court does not have to entertain belated arguments. Overall, the ruling serves as a reminder to local governments that their duty extends beyond mere maintenance; it includes ensuring the safety of the public by taking reasonable precautions and providing adequate warnings in construction areas.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Quezon City government was liable for damages caused by an accident resulting from their negligence in maintaining a road repair site.
    What is Article 2189 of the Civil Code? Article 2189 holds provinces, cities, and municipalities liable for damages resulting from the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.
    What constitutes gross negligence? Gross negligence is such utter want of care as to raise a presumption that the persons at fault must have been conscious of the probable consequences of their carelessness and indifferent to the danger.
    When can moral damages be awarded in quasi-delicts? Moral damages can be awarded in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries, and proof of such injuries is required through sufficient and adequate substantiating medical records.
    What are exemplary damages for? Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, acting as a deterrent to socially deleterious actions.
    Why was the award for moral damages removed? The award for moral damages was removed because the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence of the physical injuries suffered, as required by Article 2219(2) of the Civil Code.
    What must a city government do regarding road maintenance? The city government must keep the roads in a reasonably safe condition and post sufficient precautionary signs to prevent accidents.
    Was contributory negligence argued during the trial? No, contributory negligence on the part of the injured party was argued during a motion for reconsideration, but it was too late to argue since the argument was to be filed during the trial.

    This case emphasizes the critical role of local governments in ensuring public safety through proper road maintenance and adequate warning systems. This ruling underscores that failing to uphold these duties will result in liability for damages. Negligence is not just a matter of poor maintenance but a breach of the public trust and safety that citizens depend on.

    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: Quezon City Government vs. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005