Photo sourced from Philippine Star
Research by Jaira Lou V. Batangan and Carlo Alfonso Sales
July 26, 2023—Supreme Court En Banc directed Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, the Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with for issuing Order No. 096, Series of 2023, giving PAO lawyers the “discretion and disposition” to comply with Sec. 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
The provision limits the invocation of “conflict of interest” to the PAO lawyers and direct supervisor handling a case, thereby allowing other PAO lawyers to represent the other party upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.
PAO Compliance with Sec. 22
By unanimous vote, the Court deemed the Office Order as belligerent and disrespectful. It adopts precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases “to protect their life and limb”, and to avoid criminal responsibility and imprisonment by reconciling Sec. 22, Canon III of the CPRA with Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes betrayal of trust and revelation of secrets by lawyers. Thus, although presenting itself as a directive to comply with Sec. 22, Canon III of the CPRA, the Office Order further instigated disobedience to the said rule by effectively accusing the Court of directly exposing Public Attorneys not only to criminal and administrative liability, but also to physical danger.
The Office Order was issued following a prior show cause order from the Court against Acosta for her unabated public tirades against Sec. 22, Canon III of the CPRA despite already submitting a formal request to delete the same in a letter addressed to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo. Through social and mainstream media, Acosta alleged that the said provision would result in a scenario where PAO lawyers are pitted against each other in one case, thus creating an impression of sham and the appearance of impropriety within the office. She also branded the adoption of the CPRA as unconstitutional insofar as it violates the separation of powers and allows the Supreme Court to unduly interfere with PAO’s operations.
SC’s denial of the request to delete Sec. 22
In its Resolution denying Acosta’s request, the Court ruled that the provision ensures lawyers are honest and free from outside influence and to safeguard the rights and interests of the parties involved. The rule on conflict of interest for the lawyers of the PAO does not contravene the constitutional mandate of the separation of powers because it is consistent with the State’s duty to provide free legal assistance to indigent persons; they cannot turn away the poor merely on the ground of conflict of interest. The High Court also held that the provision is in “accord with the international standards and best practices on the role of public defenders.” Persida’s request to delete the section was deemed premature and without basis because the CPRA has not yet taken effect.
Persida Acosta’s public apology
Persida Acosta’s apology to the SC in challenging the conflict of interest rule of the CPRA was made on July 14, 2023 through video posted on her Facebook page. Acosta apologized to the Supreme Court if her words caused them pain and sought their mercy and sympathy. She also guaranteed them that she and all PAO lawyers would abide by the provision and honor the power of the Supreme Court.
THE BARRISTER 