Pcgg vs sandiganbayan

Facts:
a. In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties.
b. in order to recover, the said bank had mega loans from the Central Bank accounting to 310
million pesos.
c. despite that move, Genbank was later on, declared insolvent. It cannot resume business due
to its financial crisis.
d. Bidding was done on GenBanks asset, which was won by Lucio Tan and others.
e. acting in duty and in principle of the said situation, Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed
a petition with the then Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the
court in GENBANKs liquidation as mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 265.
f. After Edsa I, PCGG was created. It then ordered to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel
for respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. During this time, Mendoza became the legal
counsel of Tan et al.
g. PCGG alleged that former SolGen Mendoza actively intervened in the liquidation of
GENBANK which was subsequently sold to Tan and others and became Allied Banking
Corporation.
Issue:
Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza.
The said rule holds: 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.
Ruling:
No. The court rules that the intervention of 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 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
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.