G.R. No. 97351 - Gonzales vs. Chavez

Petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, a citizen and taxpayer, filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition, praying for issuance of a temporary restraining order.
The petition raised two primary issues:

Whether the Solicitor General neglected his public duty by withdrawing as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in numerous cases.
Whether the PCGG acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in hiring private lawyers following such withdrawal.

Petitioner filed the suit as a class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court due to the common interest of Filipino citizens in enforcement of public duty and prevention of unlawful public expenditure.

Totaling 144 cases.

In December 1990, the Solicitor General withdrew as counsel in these cases via a pleading entitled “Withdrawal of Appearance with Reservation.”
This pleading stated withdrawal “with reservation” to submit comments/observations if called for by circumstances or required by the court.

Following the Solicitor General’s withdrawal, the PCGG hired 40 private lawyers (19 trial lawyers) to handle the cases.
These lawyers were to receive compensation of at least P10,000/month plus appearance fees.

Petitioner argued that the Solicitor General has no discretion to withdraw as counsel under PD No. 478 and the Administrative Code of 1987, both of which mandate the Solicitor General to represent the Republic and PCGG.
Withdrawal was unauthorized as:

It was made without court approval, violating Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Solicitor General lost standing post withdrawal and hence could not file comments or observations.
The PCGG’s employment of private lawyers was unauthorized under Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, and 14; hiring private counsel implied creation of public office without legal basis.

Petitioner contended such acts risked unlawful public fund expenditure and violated mandatory legal provisions.

The Commission on Audit (COA) denied allowing disbursement of funds to pay private lawyers; it referenced COA Circulars prohibiting hiring private counsel without Solicitor General’s and COA’s consent.
The PCGG claimed broad implied authority under existing Executive Orders to employ private lawyers, especially after the Solicitor General withdrew.
PCGG explained that the OSG’s withdrawal hindered effective prosecution as its own litigation division was understaffed; the employment of private counsel was necessary to protect the State’s interest.
The Solicitor General, through Assistant Solicitor General’s comment, admitted withdrawal was due to lack of coordination and communication with PCGG, leading to “embarrassments” in court and professional humiliation.

The Court required respondents to comment but denied the prayer for temporary restraining order.
The Solicitor General inhibited himself from appearing in the case for conflict of interest.
The Court noted the high importance and far-reaching implications of the case involving national interest and legal representation of the government.

Whether the Solicitor General neglected his public duty by withdrawing as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines and the PCGG in cases he had filed.

Whether the PCGG acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in hiring private lawyers as a consequence of the Solicitor General’s withdrawal.

Whether the petitioner has the legal standing to file the petition as a taxpayer and citizen on matters involving public rights.