PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN – LAW PRACTICE AFTER GOVERNMENT

§ The main concern of PCGG v Sandiganbayan is whether or not Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility – which prohibits former government employee in accepting employment related to their
previous government work - applies to the respondent, Atty Mendoza.

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.

§ So how did the issue arise? Back in 1976, there is this bank called GenBank who even after getting loans from
the government still encountered financial difficulty leading to its closure.
§ A public bidding of Gen Bank’s asset was held and the LUCIO TAN GROUP placed the winning bid. Then, came
in Solicitor General Mendoza who filed a petition for the court to assist and supervise the liquidation, in
accordance with RA 265 (central bank powers).
§ Fast Forward to post EDSA 1, the Cory Aquino government established PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth
of the Marcos family and their cronies. So, PCGG filed a complaint to these people, which includes Lucio Tan.
§ Former Solicitor General Mendoza is now in private practice and is the counsel of Lucio Tan.
§ The PCGG filed a motion to remove Mendoza as counsel of Mendoza because he intervened with the
liquidation of GenBank, which is prohibited under Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
§ Mendoza argued that he did not intervened with the liquidation but simply assisted

RULING
Revolving door – process by which lawyers enters government service temporarily to get information and influence which they can
use they leave for private service

*adverse-interest conflict, congruent interest conflict

§ In order to see if Rule 6.03 applies, the court assessed the definition of the word “matter” as used in the
provision
§ And if advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation, as what respondent
Mendoza did, is within that definition of matter
§ Court concluded that it is not the “matter” stated in rule 6.03
§ ABA Formal Opinion – interpreting or enforcing government procedures do not fall within that
scope of matter
§ Rule 6.03 cannot be applied because the intervention of Atty Mendoza while he is the solicitor
generl is different from the case he is working with as a lawyer.