The Supreme Court En Banc has dismissed the plea of Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Chief Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta to remove Section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which states that PAO lawyers may not represent conflicting parties in a case.
The Supreme Court reminded the PAO that its primary mandate is to provide free legal assistance to the indigent.
“The Court reminded the PAO of its primordial mandate to extend free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative, and other quasi-judicial cases,” stated the resolution.
Acosta previously expressed concern about the potential conflict of interest if Section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) were enforced.
According to her, PAO lawyers would be placed in a conflicting situation.
The Supreme Court explained that providing legal assistance to the indigent due to “conflict of interest” is contrary to the primary duty of the PAO to assist individuals who cannot afford private counsel.
“Contrary to the claims of Atty. Acosta, the Court promulgated the CPRA in the exercise of its exclusive rule-making power under the Constitution. It was likewise in furtherance of the Court’s authority to supervise the practice of law and to provide free legal assistance to the underprivileged.”
The Court also did not overlook Acosta’s relentless public criticism against Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA, where she claimed the section was illegal and interfered with the work of the PAO.
The Court ordered Acosta to provide an explanation as to why she should not be held in indirect contempt for her social media posts and newspaper publications.
The Supreme Court described Acosta’s statements in the social and print media against the Court as an attack on judicial independence.
“The Court thus ordered Atty. Acosta to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar.”
