Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Enriquez v. Gimenez

    Uploaded by

    Magr Esca
    The municipal mayor of Bauan, Batangas hired petitioner Julio Enriquez, Sr. as counsel to represent the municipality in a case against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority after the provincial fiscal declined to represent them. Enriquez filed the complaint and requested reimbursement for docket fees and initial attorney's fees. The Auditor General disallowed the reimbursement for initial attorney's fees but allowed the docket fees. The court ruled that the Auditor General did not err in disallowing the initial attorney's fees because a fiscal cannot refuse their duties unless specifically allowed by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Enriquez v. Gimenez

    Uploaded by

    Magr Esca
    38 views1 page
    The municipal mayor of Bauan, Batangas hired petitioner Julio Enriquez, Sr. as counsel to represent the municipality in a case against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority after the provincial fiscal declined to represent them. Enriquez filed the complaint and requested reimbursement for docket fees and initial attorney's fees. The Auditor General disallowed the reimbursement for initial attorney's fees but allowed the docket fees. The court ruled that the Auditor General did not err in disallowing the initial attorney's fees because a fiscal cannot refuse their duties unless specifically allowed by law.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The municipal mayor of Bauan, Batangas hired petitioner Julio Enriquez, Sr. as counsel to represent the municipality in a case against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority after the provincial fiscal declined to represent them. Enriquez filed the complaint and requested reimbursement for docket fees and initial attorney's fees. The Auditor General disallowed the reimbursement for initial attorney's fees but allowed the docket fees. The court ruled that the Auditor General did not err in disallowing the initial attorney's fees because a fiscal cannot refuse their duties unless specifically allowed by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    38 views1 page

    Enriquez v. Gimenez

    Uploaded by

    Magr Esca
    The municipal mayor of Bauan, Batangas hired petitioner Julio Enriquez, Sr. as counsel to represent the municipality in a case against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority after the provincial fiscal declined to represent them. Enriquez filed the complaint and requested reimbursement for docket fees and initial attorney's fees. The Auditor General disallowed the reimbursement for initial attorney's fees but allowed the docket fees. The court ruled that the Auditor General did not err in disallowing the initial attorney's fees because a fiscal cannot refuse their duties unless specifically allowed by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Enriquez v.

    Gimenez

    FACTS:

    On 2 June 1956 the municipal mayor of Bauan, Batangas wrote a letter to Julio Enriquez, Sr. (petitioner)
    engaging his services as counsel for the municipality in its contemplated action against the National
    Waterworks and Sewerage Authority. This is after the fact that the provincial fiscal of the municipality
    declined to represent such in an action to be brought againt NWSA to test the validity and
    constitutionality of the Act creating it. On 28 June 1956 the petitioner accepted the offer and filed the
    necessary complaint in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Petitioner requested a reimbursement of
    P40.00 for docket fee and P500.00 as initial attorney’s fee. On 24 June 1957 the Auditor General, herein
    respondent, disallowed in audit the petitioner’s claim for initial attorney’s fee but offered no objection
    to the refund of docket fee.

    ISSUE:

    WON the Auditor General erred in disallowing the reimbursement of the initial attorney’s fee.

    RULING:

    No. Bias or prejudice and animosity or hostility on the part of a fiscal not based on any of the conditions
    enumerated in the law and the Rules of Court do not constitute a legal and valid excuse for inhibition or
    disqualification. And unlike a practising lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal cannot
    refuse the performance of his action and functions on grounds not provided for by law without violating
    his oath of office, where he swore, among other, “that he will well and faithfully discharge to the best of
    his ability the duties of the office or position upon which he is about to enter….”

    You might also like