PCGG

Vs.
Sandiganbayan

Facts:

1. In 1976, GENBANK was experiencing financial difficulties by permitting various doubtful and
uncollectible loans totaling to millions of unrealized revenue and losses. Despite the Central Bank
bailing out GENBANK by giving an emergency loan of P310 million they still failed to recover from
their financial woes resulting in the Central Bank declaring GENBANK insolvent and sold their
assets via a public auction wherein the Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid.
2. In February 1896, the EDSA revolution toppled the Marcos government. One of the first acts
President Aquino instituted was to establish PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos
3. On July 17,1986, the petitioner the PCGG, filed a complaint for reversion, reconveyance,
restitution, accounting and damages against the respondents Lucio Tan, et.al. The PCGG issued
several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking
advantage of their close-relationship with former President Marcos.
4. The respondents were represented by former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, who has
resumed the private practice of law.
5. On February 5, 1991, the petitioner filed a motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel
for respondents alleging that he intervened in the acquisition of GENBANK by respondents, when
in the capacity as Solicitor General. The petitioners invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in service.
6. On April 22, 1991, The Sandiganbayan DENIED the petitioners motion contending that petitioner
failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between Mendozas former function as Solicitor
General and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. The Sandiganbayan stated
that the 1 year prohibitory period as contemplated in Rule 6.03 has already elapsed and thus
Mendoza may practice his profession on behalf of the respondents.
7. The PCGG filed the current petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Sandiganbayan for DENYING their motion based on:
a. Rule 6.03 prohibits a former government lawyer from accepting employment in
connection with any matter in which he intervened in;
b. The prohibition in the Rule is not time-bound;
c. That Central Bank could not waive the objection to respondent Mendozas appearance
on behalf of PCGG;
d. The resolution was interlocutory, thus res judicata does not apply.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent
Mendoza. Again, 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: The Supreme Court ruled that based on ABA Opinion 342 wherein the Code of Professional
Responsibility is derived. The said matter describes matter as to exclude the drafting, enforcing and
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of
law. The former Solicitor General Mendoza advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is not the matter contemplated in Rule 6.03 as in accordance to ABA Opinion 342 enforcing
or interpreting procedure do not fall in this matter to which 6.03 derives its origin from.

The intervention of Mendoza in advising the Central Bank on liquidation procedures is different from the
current case regarding the sequestration of the stocks. The Supreme Court stated that whether
Mendoza was eligible to take the case is a dead issue considering it was only after the respondent lost
various legal incidents had they sought to disqualify Mendoza and that by doing so would incidentally
leave the respondent to start from scratch as opposed to a lawyer to which the respondent has
confidence over. The Supreme Court further stated that at the time Mendoza was Solicitor General Rule
6.03 was not yet in place and should not retroact to his detriment.

WHEREFORE THE petition is DISMISSED