You are on page 1of 1

30 PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN *kalokohan na kaso to, 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision 28 pages lang ** merong history of Rule

e 6.03 and other historical stuff sa case Facts: 1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover. 1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbanks assets was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the liquidation of Genbank. 1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and cronies. 1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). In relation to this case, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case. Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents. 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendozas appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986. W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group. The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial. SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting desperate Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were related to ones work as a government counsel.

Issue: Held:

Concurring Opinions: Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have a prescriptive period Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet) Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive period and if applied retroactively Notes: Adverse-interest conflicts where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the government and the interests of the current and former are adverse Congruent-interest conflicts the use of the word conflict is a misnomer, it does not involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers from representing a private person even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel Matter any discrete, isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party Intervention interference that may affect the interests of others