GR 97351; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97351 February 4, 1992
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, in his capacity as Solicitor General, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, and COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, as a citizen-taxpayer, filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition. He challenged the Solicitor General’s withdrawal of appearance as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in 144 pending cases. The withdrawal was made via a pleading titled “Withdrawal of Appearance with Reservation,” which reserved the Solicitor General’s right to submit comments on incidents if required by the court or in the government’s interest. Consequently, the PCGG hired approximately forty private lawyers to handle the cases, entailing substantial public expenditure for their compensation and appearance fees.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Solicitor General neglected his statutory duty by withdrawing as counsel for the government and the PCGG, and whether the PCGG acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in hiring private lawyers as a result.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court ruled that the Solicitor General’s withdrawal of appearance was a dereliction of a mandatory duty. Under Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, the Office of the Solicitor General is the principal law office and legal defender of the Government. Its statutory mandate to represent the Government and its agencies in litigation is compulsory and not discretionary. The Solicitor General cannot unilaterally withdraw from cases where the Government is a party-litigant; such withdrawal effectively constitutes a refusal to perform an official duty. The reservation to submit comments was deemed insufficient to cure this breach, as it did not constitute the active representation required by law. Consequently, the PCGG’s subsequent hiring of private lawyers, funded by public money, was rendered unlawful because it stemmed from an invalid withdrawal. The Court ordered the Solicitor General to resume representation in the subject cases and directed the PCGG to cease employing private counsel for those matters.