G.R. No. L-28535 October 10, 1980
SOLICITOR GENERAL and SERAFIN D. QUIASON, petitioners, vs. ABUNDIO P. GARRIDO and HON. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Abundio P. Garrido filed a criminal complaint with the City Fiscal of Manila against Serafin D. Quiason, Director of the National Library, and Manuel P. Portugal for alleged violations of the Civil Service Law and the Revised Penal Code. During the preliminary investigation, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance as counsel for Director Quiason. Garrido objected, arguing that the OSG lacked authority to represent a public official in a criminal complaint filed against him in his private capacity.
The City Fiscal overruled the objection, permitting the OSG’s appearance. Consequently, Garrido filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was presided over by respondent Judge Francisco Geronimo. Judge Geronimo issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Solicitor General from appearing in the preliminary investigation and the City Fiscal from allowing such appearance. The Solicitor General and Director Quiason then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Solicitor General is legally authorized to represent a public official in a preliminary investigation before the City Fiscal for alleged criminal acts arising from the performance of official duties.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the preliminary injunction, and dismissed Garrido’s petition for disqualification. The Court anchored its ruling on the explicit statutory mandate of the OSG under Section 1661 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides that as the principal law officer of the Government, the Solicitor General has authority to represent its officers in any official investigation requiring a lawyer’s services.
The legal logic is clear: the alleged offenses imputed to Director Quiason arose from the exercise of his official functions. At the preliminary investigation stage, which is an “official investigation,” the OSG’s representation is fully warranted to ensure the government official is properly defended in matters connected to his office. This interpretation safeguards the executive branch’s efficiency, preventing the paralysis of government operations that could result if officials were left undefended against potentially ill-founded suits during preliminary inquiries. The Court, however, emphasized a crucial caveat: this authority of the OSG applies only during the preliminary investigation. Should the case proceed to court and an information be filed, the public official must then secure his own private counsel for the criminal prosecution. Since the proceedings against Quiason had not progressed beyond the preliminary investigation, the OSG’s appearance was perfectly legal and the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in enjoining it.