FIRST MEETING

SECOND MEETING

1. IN RE: TAGORDA

Facts: Luis Tagorda was a member of the provincial board of Isabela. Previous to the last election, he admits that he made use of a
card written in Spanish containing the fact that he was a candidate for third member of the Province of Isabela & offering services as
notary public (such as free consultation, execution of deed of sale, etc.). He also admits that he wrote a letter addressed to a
lieutenant of a barrio if his home municipality saying that he will continue his practice of law and for the lieutenant to make known
to the people of his desire to serve as lawyer & notary public (including his services to handle land registration cases for P3/every
registration).

Issue: W/N acts of Tagorda constituted advertising

Held: Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics. Solicitation of business by
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations is unprofessional. His
acts warrant disbarment, but because of the mitigating circumstance of his youth and inexperience, he is therefore suspended. 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 is also unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit. Lastly, solicitation of cases result
in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of the bar (as it results in needless litigations and
in incenting to strife otherwise peaceful citizens).

6. SUAREZ V. PLATON

Facts: Suarez was charged with sedition which was subsequently dismissed. He in turn filed a case for arbitrary detention against
Lieutenant Orais. After the case was handed to Judge Platon following several changes in trial judge and several refusals by fiscals to
prosecute the case.

Issue: Should mandamus issue to compel the fiscal to reinstate the case?

Held: Yes. It is unquestionable that in the proper cases, the prosecutors must reinvestigate in order to properly dispense justice. At
the same time, it must be kept in mind that a prosecutor is the representative of a sovereignty; he is interested only in the fact that
justice is served, and this also includes his refusing to prosecute if the innocence of the accused is quite clear. He is a servant of the
law, and his two-fold aim is not to let the guilty escape nor let the innocent suffer. He is not at liberty to strike foul blows because it
is his duty to refrain from doing so as much as it is to use legitimate methods of prosecution.

7. PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a resolution
declaring GENBANK insolvent. Former 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 GENBANK's liquidation.

After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the purpose of recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed
with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against respondents Tan, et
al. so PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the above-named persons by taking advantage
of their close relationship and influence with former President Marcos. These respondents were represented by Mendoza.

PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents. The motions alleged that respondent Mendoza,
as then Solicitor General and counsel to Central Bank, 'actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking Corporation.

The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government
lawyers from accepting 4 Local Government Code of 1991 'engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE: W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza?

HELD: NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. 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 . 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.

The 'matter’ where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK
thru the courts and in filing the necessary petition. 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 which is about the sequestration of the shares of
respondents Tan, et al.

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.

Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in the liquidation case is not significant and substantial. 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.

Also, the disqualification of respondent Mendoza has long been a dead issue. For a fact, the recycled motion for disqualification in
the case at bar was filed more than four years after the filing of the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the
Supreme Court which were subsequently remanded to the Sandiganbayan. At the very least, the circumstances under which the
motion to disqualify in the case at bar were refiled put petitioner's motive as highly suspect.

It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch sides. It is
claimed that 'switching sides' carries the danger that former government employee may compromise confidential official
information in the process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As afore-discussed, the act of respondent
Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the subject matter of
Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. There is no switching
sides for there were no sides.

THIRD MEETING