This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The fact that this Petition for Certiorari raises questions of fact further militates against it. In Day v. RTC of Zamboanga City, Br. XIII,[27] the Court held that in an original action for certiorari, questions of fact cannot be raised much less passed upon by the respondent court. Only established or admitted facts can be considered.[28] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| On April 22, 1991 the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying PCGG's motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza in Civil Case No. 0005.[11] It found that the PCGG failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza's former function as Solicitor General and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. It noted that respondent Mendoza did not take a position adverse to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank during his term as Solicitor General.[12] It further ruled that respondent Mendoza's appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. The said section prohibits a former public official or employee from practicing his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with within one year from his resignation, retirement or separation from public office.[13] The PCGG did not seek any reconsideration of the ruling.[14] | |||||