2/4/2020 PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

151805 (2005) | Philippines Case Digests

Philippines Case Digests Various cases specially for law students. search

Sidebar Home

PCGG vs. Sandiganbaya…

PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 151805 (2005)
Khan vs. Simbillo, A.C N…

FACTS:
Villatuya vs. Tabalingcos, …

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc.…

In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial
Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., A.… difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to Filcapital
Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current
account with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover from
Moreno vs. Araneta, A.C …
its financial woes. The Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK
insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and
Bongalonta vs. Castillo, … the general public, and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANK’s
assets was held where Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General
In Re: Dacanay, B.M NO.… Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and
supervision of the court in GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After
EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-
In Re: JOAQUIN T. BOR…
gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to this
mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion,
In Re: Al C. Argosino 246… reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several
writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage
of their close relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The
Philippine Lawyer's Asso…
abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, former
Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza
Cayetano vs. Monsod, 2… as counsel for respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that
Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in the
Catu vs. Rellosa [A.C. No… liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan et.
al., which subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to
disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
prohibits former government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service.
The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to disqualify
respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between
respondent Mendoza’s former function as SolGen and his present employment as
counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court assailing the
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:

Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent

Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government
service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which
he had intervened while in the said service.”

HELD:

Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger.

https://enerlaw.blogspot.com/2018/01/pcgg-vs-sandiganbayan-gr-no-151805-2005.html 1/2
2/4/2020 PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 151805 (2005) | Philippines Case Digests

Philippines Case The

Digests
case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03.
Various cases specially for law students.
Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he
search

acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the

Sidebar Home Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of whether there exists a “congruent-
interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing
PCGG vs. Sandiganbaya… respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and the metes and
bounds of “intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter”
Khan vs. Simbillo, A.C N… or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case at bar is “advising
the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s liquidation and even filing
the petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The Court held that the advice given by
Villatuya vs. Tabalingcos, …
respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the “matter”
contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc.… Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that “drafting, enforcing or interpreting
government or agencyprocedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract
Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., A.… principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term “matter” and
cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the
Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of
Moreno vs. Araneta, A.C …
GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue
in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the
Bongalonta vs. Castillo, … dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his
alleged intervention while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the
In Re: Dacanay, B.M NO.…
matter involved in the Civil case of sequestration. In the metes and boundsof the
“intervention”. The applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of
In Re: JOAQUIN T. BOR… Professional Ethics is that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence the
subject proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist where
In Re: Al C. Argosino 246… the government lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous such as
“ drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government or agencyprocedures, regulations or
laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court rules that the intervention of
Philippine Lawyer's Asso…
Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives
assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly as a court
Cayetano vs. Monsod, 2… of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of
creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual court
Catu vs. Rellosa [A.C. No… litigator protecting the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A
lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ, should
not after his retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which he
has investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as a
vehicle to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his tenure on
certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this
restriction specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A plain
reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served in the
government and 2. relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the service.

Reference: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/151809_12.htm
[http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/151809_12.htm]

Posted 15th January 2018 by Ener Yow

Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger.

https://enerlaw.blogspot.com/2018/01/pcgg-vs-sandiganbayan-gr-no-151805-2005.html 2/2