G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), LUCIO C. TAN, ET AL., and ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, Respondents.

FACTS

The PCGG filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth amassed by respondents Lucio Tan and others in collusion with former President Ferdinand Marcos. The respondents were represented by former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza. The PCGG moved to disqualify Atty. Mendoza, invoking Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The PCGG alleged that while serving as Solicitor General, Mendoza had actively intervened in the liquidation of General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK), which was later acquired by the Lucio Tan group and became Allied Banking Corporation. Specifically, he advised the Central Bank and filed a court petition for assistance in GENBANK’s liquidation.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to disqualify. It found no inconsistency between Mendoza’s former government function and his current representation, noting he had not taken a position adverse to the Central Bank’s interest. The PCGG filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to disqualify Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza as counsel for the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Sandiganbayan’s ruling. The Court clarified that the standard for judicial review via certiorari is grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan’s denial was based on its factual finding that the PCGG failed to prove Mendoza “intervened” in the GENBANK matter within the prohibitive scope of Rule 6.03. The Court emphasized that the term “intervene” in the ethical rule implies active involvement in the factual investigation, deliberation, or resolution of the matter, not merely performing routine governmental duties like advising or filing petitions as part of the Solicitor General’s general mandate.
The Sandiganbayan correctly found that Mendoza’s actions as Solicitor General were part of his official function to represent government agencies and did not constitute the personal, discretionary intervention contemplated by the rule to create a conflict of interest. Since the factual finding of non-intervention was not tainted with arbitrariness, no grave abuse of discretion attended the Sandiganbayan’s order. The Court also noted that the ethical rule in question was not yet in force at the time Mendoza commenced his representation, reinforcing the reasonableness of the Sandiganbayan’s decision.