Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005 Ruling: Facts: No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. Rule 6.03 On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz, – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept who has currently resumed the private practice of law, was engagement or employment in connection with any matter in sought to be disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan which he had intervened while in said service. The motion for group, in the 1987 case involving General Bank and Trust disqualification should be dismissed for 3 main reasons: Company (GENBANK) as one of those properties subject to a writ of sequestration by PCGG being alleged to be ill –gotten 1) After discussing the history of the present Code of wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime. It was averred by Professional Responsibility which revealed that the the PCGG that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza word “intervene” is applicable to both adverse interest since he was the one who filed a petition praying for conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has been assistance and supervision of the court in the liquidation of found that neither of these conflicts exists in the GENBANK when he was still a Solicitor General, which bank liquidation case and the sequestration case. The was subsequently owned by the Lucio Tan group when it revolving door theory was also discussed and was submitted the winning bid. found that such is not applicable in the case at bar. The “Adverse interest conflicts” exist where the PCGG invokes Rule 6.03of the Code of Professional matter in which the former government lawyer Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers represents a client in private practice is substantially from accepting “engagement or employment in connection related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while with any matter in which he had intervened while in said employed by the government and the interests of the service.” current and former are adverse. The “Congruent interest conflicts” are unique to government lawyers Sandiganbayan rejects PCGG’s motion by arguing that CGG and apply primarily to former government lawyers, failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between prohibiting lawyers from representing a private respondent Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General practice client even if the interests of the former and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan government client and the new client are entirely group and that Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for parallel. Also, the “Revolving door theory” is the respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he government service from private life and then leave it ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. for large fees in private practice, where they can exploit information, contacts, and influence garnered in liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the government service. court in this type of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of 2) The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an creditors against the GENBANK. issue in the sequestration cases. The “matter” where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK through the courts and in filing the necessary petition in the then Court of First Instance. The subject “matter” of the special proceeding, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is different from the subject “matter” in the civil case. The civil case 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.
3) Mendoza’s intervention in the liquidation of Genbank is
not substantial and significant to warrant disqualification. 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. Moreover, the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of the court in the
IMERYS CHAPTER 11 - OBJECTION OF ARNOLD & ITKIN PLAINTIFFS TO MOTION OF DEBTORS FOR ENTRY OF ORDER (I) APPROVING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE OF HEARING THEREON, (II) ESTABLISHING SOLICITATION PROCEDURES, (III) APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS AND CERTIFIED PLAN SOLICITATION DIRECTIVE, (IV) APPROVING FORM OF BALLOTS, (V) APPROVING FORM, MANNER, AND SCOPE OF CONFIRMATION NOTICES, (VI) ESTABLISHING CERTAIN DEADLINES IN CONNECTION WITH APPROVAL OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF PLAN, AND (VII) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF