The Supreme Court (SC) ordered Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Chief Persida V. Rueda Acosta to explain why she should not be charged administratively for issuing an office order that gave public attorneys the “discretion and disposition” to comply with the provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
In a statement, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said Acosta’s office order “is viewed by the Court as a further act of disobedience and obstruction which degrades the administration of justice.”
The PIO said the SC also viewed Acosta’s declarations in her office order “as belligerent and disrespectful as she effectively accused the Court of directly exposing the Public Attorneys not only to criminal and administrative liability, but also physical danger.”
Last July 11, Acosta was ordered by the SC to explain why she should not be cited in contempt and disciplined as a lawyer for publicly assailing a CPRA provision through social media posts and newspaper publications.
In response to the July 11 order, Acosta apologized to the SC last July 13 and on the same day announced that she issued Office Order No. 096 which advised PAO lawyers to reconcile the provision of the CPRA with Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) that penalizes lawyers for betrayal of public trust.
“PAO resident public attorneys are likewise advised to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases to protect their life and limb as well as to avoid criminal and administrative liability,” PAO’s office order also stated.
In a unanimous vote of justices, the SC that PAO’s office order gave the public attorneys the “discretion and disposition” to comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA and advised the Public Attorneys to reconcile the said provision with Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes betrayal of trust and revelation of secrets by lawyers, to avoid any criminal responsibility and imprisonment, an insinuation that compliance with the CPRA will amount to the commission of such offenses.
Also, the SC pointed out that the office order urged the public attorneys to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases “to protect their life and limb” and avoid criminal and administrative liability.
“Thus, although it presented itself as a directive to comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA, the Office Order further instigated disobedience to the said rule,” the PIO also said quoting from the SC resolution which has not been uploaded.
In her apology, Acosta told the SC justices: “To our beloved justices of the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Public Attorney’s Office and all public attorneys nationwide, I humbly and most respectfully apologize if you may have been hurt by the circumstances.”
“We beg for your understanding and indulgence. The arguments that we have stated were brought about by our passion to efficiently serve our clients and the poor and needy, which we have been inculcating in our lawyers’ practice,” she also said.
Acosta had been pushing for the removal of Section 22, Canon III which, she claimed, disregarded the PAO’s policy against conflict of interest by allowing PAO lawyers to represent opposing parties in cases.
The provision of the CPRA states:
“The Public Attorney’s Office is the primary legal aid service of the government. In the pursuit of its mandate under its charter, the Public Attorney’s Office shall ensure ready access to its services by the marginalized sectors of society in a manner that takes into consideration the avoidance of potential conflict of interest situations which will leave these marginalized parties unassisted by counsel.
“A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor. Such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.”