RAMON A. GONZALES, vs. HON. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, in his capacity as Solicitor General, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, and COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 97351
- Promulgated: 1992-02-04
- Ponente: Romero, J.
Doctrine
The Solicitor General is the lawyer of the government and its agents in all litigation, except when officials are criminally charged or civilly sued for damages arising from a felony; his services cannot be lightly rejected by the concerned officer.
The Solicitor General has broad executive discretion to dismiss, abandon, discontinue or compromise suits, but that discretion is not unlimited and must be exercised in the best interest of the State.
As a public officer, the Solicitor General's duty to represent the Government may be enforced by writ of mandamus to prevent a failure of justice, though the Court will not dictate the exact manner he must exercise discretion.
Facts
Petitioner sought mandamus and prohibition to determine whether the Solicitor General neglected duty by withdrawing as counsel for the Republic and the PCGG and whether the PCGG acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in hiring private lawyers after such withdrawal.
Petitioner filed as a class suit under Section 12, Rule 3, alleging the matters involve common and general interest of Filipino citizens and taxpayers concerning enforcement of public duty and prevention of unlawful public expenditure.
The Solicitor General had moved to withdraw appearance in several cases of national importance; the Court issued a resolution allowing withdrawal with national interest considerations because time was of the essence.
The PCGG, faced with the Solicitor General's refusal to continue, engaged private counsel to avoid prejudicing the government's efforts to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and associates.
Issues
Whether the Solicitor General neglected his public duty by withdrawing as counsel for the Republic and the PCGG and whether he may be compelled by mandamus to appear for them.
Whether the PCGG acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in hiring private lawyers as a result of the Solicitor General's withdrawal of appearance.
Whether the case is moot and academic such that the Court should refrain from deciding the substantive issues raised.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is GRANTED; the Solicitor General is directed to immediately re-enter his appearance in cases where he filed to withdraw, and the PCGG shall terminate the services of employed private lawyers after paying reasonable fees per COA rules.
The writ of prohibition is denied because it cannot remedy acts already consummated; the PCGG's hiring of private lawyers was justified under the circumstances though it failed to coordinate closely with the Solicitor General.
The Court exercises its role to decide despite ostensible mootness given the case's national importance and the need to clarify guiding principles for future similar matters.
Keywords
G.R. No. 97351, mandamus and prohibition, Solicitor General, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Commission on Audit, citizen taxpayer, class suit, Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, public duty, unlawful expenditure of public funds, Sandiganbayan, National Labor Relations Commission, Municipal Trial Court, Withdrawal of Appearance with Reservation, Presidential Decree No. 478, Executive Order No. 292, Orbos v. Civil Service Commission, Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 478, Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987, judicial discretion