Case Digest: Week 3- 5

PCGG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and LUCIO TAN, ET. AL

455 SCRA 526
G.R. No.: 151809-12
APRIL 12, 2005

Rule 6.03: A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,

accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service

FACTS:

 Under the mandate of then Pres. Corazon Aquino, the PCGG (Presidential
Commission on Good Governance) to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth
of the former Pres. Ferdinand Marcos, his families, and his cronies.
 July 17, 1987, PCGG filed a complaint with Sandiganbayan for “reversion,
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages” against the
respondent Lucio Tan, et.al.
 PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on the alleged properties
they acquired by taking the advantage of their influence and
relationship to the former President.
 Lucio Tan, et.al. were represented by former Solicitor General of
President Marcos who is now practicing privately, Atty. Estelito Mendoza
and filed petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction to
nullify and among others. These petitions were docketed as Civil Case
No.: 0096-0099.
 February 5, 1991, PCGG filed a motion to disqualify, Atty. Estelito
Mendoza as counsel of the respondents. PCGG alleged that the former
Solicitor General “actively intervened” in the liquidation of GENBANK
which was acquired by Lucio Tan. PCGG invoked in their motion the Canon
Rule No. 6.03: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which
he had intervened while in said service.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Atty. Estelito Mendoza is qualified to appear as counsel
for the respondents Lucio Tan, et.al under Rule 6.03.

RULING:

The court denied the petition of PCGG to disqualify Atty. Estelito

Mendoza as counsel of respondent Tan, et. al. Canon Rule 6.03 cannot be
applied to respondent because of his alleged intervention as Solicitor General
in “actively intervening” in the liquidation of GENBANK. Thus, the Court
held that 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.
Justices Panganiban and Carpio and the other justices opines that the
Rule 6.03 should be subjected to a prescriptive period. Mr. Justice Tinga,
also reiterated his position that (1) when respondent Mendoza was the
Solicitor General, Rule 6.03 has not yet adopted by the IBP and approved by
this Court, and (2) the bid to disqualify respondent Mendoza was made after
the lapse of time whose length cannot, by any standard, qualify as
reasonable.