You are on page 1of 2

PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al Issue: WON Rule 6.

03 of the Code of Professional


Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza
G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005
Ruling:
Facts:
No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. Rule 6.03
On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz, – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
who has currently resumed the private practice of law, was engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
sought to be disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan which he had intervened while in said service. The motion for
group, in the 1987 case involving General Bank and Trust disqualification should be dismissed for 3 main reasons:
Company (GENBANK) as one of those properties subject to a
writ of sequestration by PCGG being alleged to be ill –gotten 1) After discussing the history of the present Code of
wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime. It was averred by Professional Responsibility which revealed that the
the PCGG that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza word “intervene” is applicable to both adverse interest
since he was the one who filed a petition praying for conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has been
assistance and supervision of the court in the liquidation of found that neither of these conflicts exists in the
GENBANK when he was still a Solicitor General, which bank liquidation case and the sequestration case. The
was subsequently owned by the Lucio Tan group when it revolving door theory was also discussed and was
submitted the winning bid. found that such is not applicable in the case at bar.
The “Adverse interest conflicts” exist where the
PCGG invokes Rule 6.03of the Code of Professional matter in which the former government lawyer
Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers represents a client in private practice is substantially
from accepting “engagement or employment in connection related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said employed by the government and the interests of the
service.” current and former are adverse. The “Congruent
interest conflicts” are unique to government lawyers
Sandiganbayan rejects PCGG’s motion by arguing that CGG
and apply primarily to former government lawyers,
failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between
prohibiting lawyers from representing a private
respondent Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General
practice client even if the interests of the former
and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan
government client and the new client are entirely
group and that Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for
parallel. Also, the “Revolving door theory” is the
respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited
process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter
period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he
government service from private life and then leave it
ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986.
for large fees in private practice, where they can exploit
information, contacts, and influence garnered in liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the
government service. court in this type of proceedings is to assist the
Central Bank in determining claims of
2) The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an creditors against the GENBANK.
issue in the sequestration cases.
The “matter” where he got himself involved was in
informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by
law to liquidate GENBANK through the courts and in
filing the necessary petition in the then Court of First
Instance. The subject “matter” of the special
proceeding, therefore, is not the same nor is related to
but is different from the subject “matter” in the civil
case. The civil case involves the sequestration of the
stocks owned by respondents Tan, et al., in Allied
Bank on the alleged ground that they are ill-gotten.
The case does not involve the liquidation of
GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK
to Allied Bank. Whether the shares of stock of the
reorganized Allied Bank are ill-gotten is far
removed from the issue of the dissolution and
liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was liquidated by
the Central Bank due, among others, to the alleged
banking malpractices of its owners and officers.

3) Mendoza’s intervention in the liquidation of Genbank is


not substantial and significant to warrant
disqualification.
The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory
pleading, hence, it has to be signed by respondent
Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. For
another, the record is arid as to the actual
participation of respondent Mendoza in the
subsequent proceedings. Moreover, the petition filed
merely seeks the assistance of the court in the

You might also like