PCGG VS SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: In 1976, the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial
difficulties. Due to their extended considerable financial support to FILCAPITAL, they incurred daily
overdrawing on the account with Central Bank. They failed to recover from their financial woes that
the Central Bank issued a resolution declaring them insolvent and unable to resume business. A
public bidding was held where Lucio Tan Group submitted the winning bid. Then Solicitor General
Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI for assistance and supervision of the court in
GENBANK’S liquidation. After the EDSA Revolution, President Corazon Aquino established the
PCGG to recover the alleged ill gotten wealth of former President Marcos and his cronies. Pursuant
to this mandate, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on the properties which were said to
be acquired by them as a Marcos crony. The respondents were then represented by former solicitor
Mendoza who is already in private practice. PCGG filed motions to disqualify him as a counsel
alleging that as Sol Gen and counsel to Central bank, he actively intervened in the liquidation process
which was acquired by Lucio Tan’s group and renamed to Allied Banking. The motion to disqualify
Mendoza invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “ A Lawyer shall not, after
leaving Government service accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in the said service.” The Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion to
disqualify respondent Mendoza.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rule 6.03 of the said code applies to respondent Mendoza.

HELD: No. In the case at bar, there terms, “matter” and “intervene” were defined in the ruling of the
Supreme Court. Based on the definition of the American Bar Association, “matter” is any isolatable
act involving a particular situation and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting
government or agency procedure, regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law. The
“matter” involved in the case is Mendoza’s act of advising with the said bank’s liquidation. The court
held that the advise given by Mendoza is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the said code.
With regards to the word “intervention”, the applicable meaning of the term is used in the Code of
Professional Responsibility is that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject
proceedings. The court rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He
merely petitions the court to give assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. In such a proceeding,
the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interests of teh government.