THE LAWYER AND

THE SOCIETY
EUGENE T. KAW
Far Eastern University - Institute of Law
FEU Building, Zuellig Makati City
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT
FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

RULE 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit
or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

RULE 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
IMPERATIVES UNDER CANON 1
1. Obey the laws and legal processes
2. Inspire others to maintain respect and obedience thereto

RULE OF LAW = SUPREMACY OF THE LAW

Ø Decisions should be known by the application of known legal
principles or laws WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF
DISCRETION in their application. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Ø A lawyer’s oath to uphold justice is superior than duty to client.
(Cobb-Perez vs. Lazatin)

DUTY TO UPHOLD CONSTITUTION AND OBEY THE LAW

Ø A lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond basic requirements of
good citizenship.
Ø A lawyer is the servant of the law to which society has entrusted the
administration of law and the dispensation of justice.
Ø Must make himself an exemplar for others to emulate.
DUTY NOT TO ENGAGE IN “UDID” CONDUCT
DECEITFUL CONDUCT
Ø Fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device to the
damage and prejudice of another.

UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
Ø Transgression of any law; need not be a penal law
Ø Presence of evil intent is not essential

(GROSSLY) IMMORAL CONDUCT

Ø Willful, flagrant, shameless showing moral indifference
Ø To warrant disciplinary action, must be GROSSLY IMMORAL
Ø So corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
Ø Unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree

DUTY NOT TO COUNSEL IN DEFIANCE OF THE LAW

Duty not to recommend or support actions that will violate or circumvent
the law such as:
• Advising clients to execute antedated deed of sale to avoid tax.
• Engaging in prohibited campaigning, use of government resources
• Disobeying repeatedly lawful orders.
• Notarizing an agreement allowing married couple to have partners.
GUEVARA vs. EALA (2007) - DISBARRED

• Indeed, from respondent's ANSWER, he does not deny carrying on an

adulterous relationship with Irene, "adultery" being defined under Art.
333 of the Revised Penal Code as that "committed by any married
woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be
married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.”
• Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and
Irene has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant
evidence — that evidence adduced by one party which is more
conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has
greater weight than the other — which is the quantum of evidence
needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
• In carrying on an extramarital affair with Irene prior to the judicial
declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void,
and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect
for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his
unfitness to be a lawyer.
DULALIA vs. CRUZ (2007) – SUSPENDED 1 YR

• Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, as opposed to grossly immoral conduct,
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Gross immoral conduct on the other hand must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

• Respondents misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions

which applied at the time he contracted his second marriage and the
seemingly unmindful attitude of his residential community towards
his second marriage notwithstanding, respondent may not go
scotfree.
SPOUSES SANTUYO vs. HIDALGO (2005) – NP Suspension

• Considering that the responsibility attached to a notary public is

sensitive respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in
the execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly
entrusted everything to the secretaries; otherwise he should not have
been commissioned as notary public.

• For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of

the document for notarization to the secretary there can be a
possibility that even the respondents signature which is the only one
left for him to do can be done by the secretary or anybody for that
matter as had been the case herein.

• As it is respondent had been negligent not only in the supposed

notarization but foremost in having allowed the office secretaries to
make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was
supposed to be done and kept by him alone; and should not have
relied on somebody else.
SICAT vs. ARIOLA (2005) - DISBARRED

In the case at bar, the records show that Benitez died on October 25, 2000.
However, respondent notarized the SPA, purportedly bearing the signature
of Benitez, on January 4, 2001 or more than two months after the latter’s
death.

His act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed upon him by
the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
which prohibited him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.

As a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was his duty to serve the
ends of justice, not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to act at all
times in accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not only
injure himself and the public but also bring reproach upon an honorable
profession.
ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2003) – INDEFINITE SUSP.

• Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s case
within the judicial forum; indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in both
broadcast and print media. xxx By his acts, Attorney Paguia may have stoked
the fires of public dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the
administration of justice.

• The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce
criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly
have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not
countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our peoples
faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been
privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.

• Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the

lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In
liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court,
Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and
pervert the dispensation of justice.
RULE 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

RULE 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

3 DUTIES:

1.Duty not to encourage any suit/proceeding for corrupt

motive/interest.

2. Duty not to delay any man’s cause for corrupt motive/interest.

3. Duty to encourage clients to avoid, end, settle controvery IF it

will admit of a fair settlement.
ACTS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY

MAINTENANCE
Ø Intermeddling of an uninterested party to encourage a lawsuit.
Ø Taking in hand, a bearing up, or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the
disturbance of the common right.
Ø Stirring up litigation.

CHAMPERTY
Ø Aggravated form of Maintenance; a.k.a. litigation finance
Ø The "maintenance" of a person in a lawsuit on condition that the subject
matter of the action is to be shared with the maintainer

BARRATRY
Ø Frequently exciting & stirring up quarrels and suits, law or otherwise.
Ø Fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal services.
Ø Not a crime in the Philippines, but it is proscribed by legal ethics.

AMBULANCE CHASING
Ø Chasing of victims of accidents and offering his legal services for the
filing of a case against the person/s who caused the accident/s.
SPOUSES CADAVEDO vs. LACAYA (2014)
In their account, the respondents insist that Atty. Lacaya agreed to
represent the spouses Cadavedo in Civil Case No. 1721 and assumed
the litigation expenses, without providing for reimbursement, in
exchange for a contingency fee consisting of one-half of the subject
lot. This agreement is champertous and is contrary to public policy.

ON CHAMPERTY

Champerty, along with maintenance (of which champerty is an

aggravated form), is a common law doctrine that traces its origin to the
medieval period.

The doctrine of maintenance was directed "against wanton and in

officious intermeddling in the disputes of others in which the
intermeddler has no interest whatever, and where the assistance
rendered is without justification or excuse."

Champerty, on the other hand, is characterized by "the receipt of a

share of the proceeds of the litigation by the intermeddler.”
SPOUSES CADAVEDO vs. LACAYA (2014)

Some common law court decisions, however, add a second factor in

determining champertous contracts, namely, that the lawyer must also, "at
his own expense maintain, and take all the risks of, the litigation."

In this jurisdiction, we maintain the rules on champerty, as adopted from

American decisions, for public policy considerations. As matters currently
stand, any agreement by a lawyer to "conduct the litigation in his own
account, to pay the expenses thereof or to save his client therefrom and
to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment is
obnoxious to the law.”

The rule of the profession that forbids a lawyer from contracting with his
client for part of the thing in litigation in exchange for conducting the case at
the lawyer’s expense is designed to prevent the lawyer from acquiring an
interest between him and his client. To permit these arrangements is to
enable the lawyer to "acquire additional stake in the outcome of the
action which might lead him to consider his own recovery rather than
that of his client or to accept a settlement which might take care of his
interest in the verdict to the sacrifice of that of his client in violation of
his duty of undivided fidelity to his client’s cause."
CANON 2 — A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES
AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

RULE 2.01 A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.

RULE 2.02 In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse
to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to
safeguard the latter's rights.

RULE 2.03 A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.

RULE 2.04 A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
IN RE: TAGORDA (1929) – SUSPENDED (1 MONTH)
• 1) Had a card with the legal services he can provide; 2) Wrote to the
Barrio Lieutenant.

• Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels

between individuals was a crime at the common law, and one of the
penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment.
Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been provided in a number
of jurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar itself, and have been
upheld as constitutional. The reason behind statutes of this type is not
difficult to discover. The law is a profession and not a business. The
lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others
for to do so would be unprofessional.

• It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly

practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the
honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession.
It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of
the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation and in
incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.
LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. TOLENTINO (2009) – SUSPENDED 1 yr.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe

Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance
and expeditious collection on their claims.[4] To induce them to
hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages.

• Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of
law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not
advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares.

• To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to

commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the
public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that
high character of service to which every member of the bar is
called.
LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. TOLENTINO (2009) – SUSPENDED 1 yr.

• Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the

purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for
disbarment.

• This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of

almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or
through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to
protect the community from barratry and champerty.
LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. TOLENTINO (2009)

• A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for

professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and
conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional
cards.

• Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance.

The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had
representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance
their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their
original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the
integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession.
KHAN vs. SIMBILLO (2003) – SUSPENDED 1 YR.
• What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising
himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly or
unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in
assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six
months from the time of the filing of the case,[he in fact encourages people,
who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.

• Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether

proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible
with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.
Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the
office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement
in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use
of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication in reputable law lists, in a
manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of
brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable.
KHAN vs. SIMBILLO (2003) – SUSPENDED 1 Yr.
• As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:
“Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyers name
and the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable
addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinctions;
public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions;
membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific
societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names
and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly
represented.”

• The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot
be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is
published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish
his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or
society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the
bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.

• The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes

in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of
the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone
directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)
CANON 3 — A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL
SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENTS OF FACTS.

RULE 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.

RULE 3.02 In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name
shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is
deceased.

RULE 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and
his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice
law concurrently.

RULE 3.04 A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business.
PANGAN vs. RAMOS (1979) - REPRIMANDED

• Court Records: Pedro DD Ramos; Roll: Dionisio D. Ramos

• The attorney's roll or register is the official record containing the names and
signatures of those who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not
authorized to use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of
Attorneys in his practice of law.

• The official oath obliges the attorney solemnly to swear that he will do no
falsehood". As an officer in the temple of justice, an attorney has
irrefragable obligations of "truthfulness, candor and frankness". Indeed,
candor and frankness should characterize the conduct of the lawyer at
every stage. This has to be so because the court has the right to rely upon him
in ascertaining the truth. In representing himself to the court as "Pedro D.D.
Ramos" instead of "Dionisio D. Ramos", respondent violated his solemn oath.

• In using the name of' Pedro D.D. Ramos" before the courts instead of the
name by which he was authorized to practice law - Dionisio D. Ramos -
respondent in effect resorted to deception. The demonstrated lack of candor
in dealing with the courts. The circumstance that this is his first aberration in
this regard precludes Us from imposing a more severe penalty.
DACANAY vs. BAKER MCKENZIE (1985)

• Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the
Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional
partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and
associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being
members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of
Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

• As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm

name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest
quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
foreign trade and investment." This is unethical because Baker &
McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here.
CANON 4 — A LAWYER SHALL
PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR
SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM
AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 — A LAWYER SHALL KEEP
ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS
IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE
PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING
INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 — THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
OFFICIAL TASKS.

RULE 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of
witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and
is cause for disciplinary action.

RULE 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests nor allow the latter to interfere with
his public duties.

RULE 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving a government service, accept engagement
or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service.
APPLICABILITY OF CPR TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS

Ø A lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon his assuming
public office.

Ø Should make him more sensitive because disreputable conduct will be

magnified.

Ø Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned.

Ø Public office is a public trust; utmost fidelity to the public service.

Ø Discharge duties with the highest degree of INTEGRITY,

professionalism, excellence, intelligence, and skill.
PCGG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2005)

The case at bar does not involve the adverse interest aspect of Rule 6.03.
Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem
when he acted as Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 and later as
counsel of respondents Tan, et al. in Civil Case No. 0005 and Civil Case
Nos. 0096-0099 before the Sandiganbayan. Nonetheless, there remains the
issue of whether there exists a congruent-interest conflict sufficient to
disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing respondents Tan, et al.

The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first, the meaning of
“matter” referred to in the rule and, second, the metes and bounds of the
“intervention” made by the former government lawyer on the “matter.” The
American Bar Association (ABA) in its Formal Opinion 342, defined
“matter” as any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction
or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not
merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or
agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of
law.
PCGG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2005)

1) Not the ”matter” contemplated. Beyond doubt, therefore, the matter or

the act of respondent Mendoza as Solicitor General 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 with the CFI of
Manila. In fine, the Court should resolve whether his act of advising the
Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included
within the concept of matter under Rule 6.03.

This advice given by 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 Opinion No. 342 is clear as
daylight in stressing that the drafting, enforcing or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or
briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the
scope of the term matter and cannot disqualify.
PCGG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2005)

2) Entirely different “matter.” The subject matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812,
therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is different from the subject
matter in Civil Case No. 0096. Civil Case No. 0096 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.

In other words, 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 dissolution and liquidation of banks. It goes without
saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot
apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a
Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter
different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
PCGG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2005)

3) “Intervention” must be substantial and significant. There are,

therefore, two possible interpretations of the word intervene. Under the first
interpretation, intervene includes participation in a proceeding even if the
intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little influence. Under
the second interpretation, intervene only includes an act of a person who
has the power to influence the subject proceedings. We hold that this
second meaning is more appropriate to give to the word intervention
under Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in light of its
history. The evils sought to be remedied by the Rule do not exist where
the government lawyer does an act which can be considered as innocuous
such as x x x drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.

In fine, the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant.

Originally, Canon 36 provided that a former government lawyer 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.
PCGG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2005)

It is, however, alleged that the intervention of respondent Mendoza in Sp.

Proc. No. 107812 is significant and substantial. We disagree. For one, 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. Indeed, the case was
in slumberville for a long number of years. None of the parties pushed
for its early termination.

Moreover, we note that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of
the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the
court in this type of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in
determining claims of creditors against the GENBANK. The role of the
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 participation of the Office of the Solicitor General is not that of the
usual court litigator protecting the interest of government.
-END-