MANILA — The Supreme Court has required Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida Rueda-Acosta to explain why she shouldn’t be cited in contempt and disciplined over her position on a new code governing the conduct of lawyers, its Public Information Office announced Wednesday.

SC denies request of PAO to delete a provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

Requires PAO chief Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta to explain why she shouldn't be cited in contempt and disciplined as a member of the Bar. pic.twitter.com/IBw2bqL6nm

— Mike Navallo (@mikenavallo) July 12, 2023

Acosta and her fellow central and regional office heads had written to the Supreme Court back in April and May to request that section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) be deleted.

PAO, through a letter, requested SC to delete section Section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which limits invocation of conflict of interest only with respect to a PAO lawyer, not the entire PAO. pic.twitter.com/zDPknKFPdY

— Mike Navallo (@mikenavallo) July 12, 2023

The Code, which took effect on May 30, governs the conduct of lawyers, replacing its 34-year-old predecessor, the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under the new code, section 22 limits invocation of “conflict of interest” to a PAO lawyer and his/her direct supervisor handling a case to allow other PAO lawyers to represent the other party.

“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,” the section said.

But PAO, in a manifesto, said the provision would pit one PAO lawyer against another would “result to disorder” and “sow distrust and suspicion among opposing parties.”

“To impose upon the lawyers of the PAO to accept conflict of interest cases on the premise that the PAO ‘is the primary legal aid service of the government’ would unduly diminish the trustworthiness, competency and efficiency of the PAO which all the men and women in the office especially the present Chief Public Attorney have worked hard to attain for the past fifty (50) years of its existence,” it said.

PAO also pointed out that the new Code did not take into account the independence given to PAO under its governing law, Republic Act No. 9406.

“There is only one Public Attorney’s Office with one enabling law — Republic Act No. 9406 and one Chief Public Attorney. We work on one budget with one Central Office vindicating one Motto, one Mission and one Vision. We cannot allow any form of tool to be utilized to sow dissension, partisan and contentious quarrelling among PAO lawyers in the handling of cases to the detriment of our beloved Public Attorney’s Office,” the manifesto said.

PAO lawyers also claimed violation of the equal protection clause because PAO was supposedly singled out in the code and its clients differently treated compared to clients of other lawyers without any valid classification.

The Supreme Court, in its press release, reminded PAO of its primary mandate to “extend free legal assistance to poor persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.”

“To turn away indigent litigants and bar them from availing of the services of all PAO lawyers nationwide due to alleged conflict of interest would be to contravene PAO’s principal duty and leave hundreds of poor litigants unassisted by legal counsel they cannot otherwise afford,” it said.

The high court explained it issued CPRA in the exercise of its rule-making power under the Constitution and under its “authority to supervise the practice of law and to provide free legal assistance to the underprivileged.”

According to the briefer, the ruling was decided unanimously by the full Court on July 11, 2023.

SHOW CAUSE

In the same press release, SC said it required Acosta to explain why she should not be cited in indirect contempt “for her social media posts and newspaper publications which tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”

She was also required to explain why she should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar over her “resort to social and print media to air her unfounded grievances against the Court” which the high court regarded as “a threat to the independence of the judiciary.”

In a phone call with ABS-CBN News, Acosta denied making any public tirade against SC, saying PAO's letter was "very respectful" to the high court.

"I never degraded the SC. I have no guts to disrespect SC," she said, adding that she started out as a SC researcher.

An emotional Acosta said she was just relaying the sentiment of the lawyers from the Public Attorney's Office, some of whom signed the letter to SC.

In a series of posts on her Facebook page, Acosta shared video recordings of her regional and district office heads with the hashtag #NOtoPAOvsPAO.

REACTIONS

On Twitter, former Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Teddy Casiño expressed his disagreement with the high court.

“Allowing the PAO to lawyer both for the accuser and accused puts it in a conflict of interest situation. It greatly diminishes the trust and confidence of their clients, with lawyers of the same agency serving as counsels of both sides,” he said.

Casiño argued PAO lawyers should be treated similar to private law firms which are not allowed to counsel for both sides.

To address the lack of lawyers for indigent litigants, he said the court can always assign a private lawyer to provide pro bono legal services.

“With this rule, the SC is putting PAO in a very difficult situation and allowing private lawyers and law firms an escape from their obligation to provide pro bono services to the poor (which, as I recall, has tax incentives anyway). I hope the SC can reconsider this,” he said.

“While I appreciate the concern of the SC in ensuring poor litigants their right to counsel, I don’t agree that it’s only the PAO that should shoulder this responsibility to the point that it will now lawyer for both parties to a case. As it is, PAO lawyers are already saddled with so many cases. Forcing them to lawyer for the opposing side will add to this already huge case load, potentially sacrificing their quality of service as well. It’s the private law firms that SC should compel to render free services,” he added.