This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Another exception is also recognized when the OSG takes a position different from that of the agency it is duty bound to represent. As an independent office, after all, the OSG is "not shackled by the cause of its client agency" and has, for its primordial concern, the "best interest of the government" which, in its perception, can run counter to its client agency's position in certain instances.[44] The exception is traced to the following pronouncements handed down by this Court in Orbos v. Civil Service Commission,[45] to wit: In the discharge of this task, the Solicitor General must see to it that the best interest of the government is upheld within the limits set by law. When confronted with a situation where one government office takes an adverse position against another government agency, as in this case, the Solicitor General should not refrain from performing his duty as the lawyer of the government. It is incumbent upon him to present to the court what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to a client's position. In such an instance the government office adversely affected by the position taken by the Solicitor General, if it still believes in the merit of its case, may appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or representative.[46] (Italics supplied) | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Solicitor General is the counsel of the government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials or agents. In the discharge of its task, the Solicitor General must see to it that the best interest of the government is upheld within the limits set by law.[20] | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is highly unusual for the Solicitor General to take a position adverse to the People or the Sandiganbayan he is representing. Generally, the Solicitor General has the duty to see to it that the interest of the government is upheld within the limits set by law.[7] It bears emphasis that in a prosecution for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as in this case, the government is the offended party. | |||||
|
2004-06-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Instead, the CSC, using its own lawyers, filed the wrong mode of review. The CSC's assertion as to the capacity of its Office of Legal Affairs to appear before this Court is of dubious legal basis. A similar issue was raised, albeit pertaining to the legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in the Court's Resolution in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory.[19] The BIR therein asserted that on the basis of Section 220 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997, its legal officers were allowed to institute civil and criminal actions and proceedings in behalf of the government. The Court disagreed, saying that it is the Solicitor General who has the primary responsibility to appear for the government in appellate proceedings,[20] it being the principal law officer and legal defender of the government.[21] The Court also cited with approval, the exception enunciated in Orbos v. Civil Service Commission[22] which is that the government office may appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or representative only if it is adversely affected by the contrary position taken by the OSG. Herein, there is no indication that the OSG has adopted a position contrary to that of the CSC; hence, appearance by the CSC on its own behalf would not be warranted. | |||||