THE Supreme Court (SC) en banc yesterday ordered Public Attorneys Office (PAO) chief Persida Rueda Acosta to explain why she should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar for issuing an order to government lawyers giving them the “discretion and disposition” to comply with a provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) that governs the conduct of lawyers in the country.
The SC was referring to PAO Office Order No.096 issued by Acosta in response to another en banc resolution dated July 11, 2023 directing the PAO to strictly comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA.
Acosta’s order gave PAO lawyers the discretion and disposition to comply with the said provision of the CPRA and advised them to reconcile it 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.
The SC said Acosta’s directive insinuates that compliance with the CPRA will amount to the commission of offenses.
Acosta’s order also urged PAO lawyers to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases “to protect their life and limb” and avoid criminal and administrative liabilities.
“The Court deemed the foregoing instructions in Atty. Acosta’s 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,” a briefer issued by the SC’s Public Information Office said.
“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 high court said.
In its July 11 resolution, the SC en banc already directed Acosta to show cause why she should not be cited in indirect contempt and disciplined as a member of the Bar for her unabated public tirades against Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA.
“The Office Order is viewed by the Court as a further act of disobedience and obstruction which degrades the administration of justice,” the briefer added.
The SC noted then that Acosta’s social media posts and newspaper publications branding the adoption of the CPRA was unconstitutional and an undue interference and intrusion by the High Court into PAO’s operations tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla took the side of the SC on the issue at the time, adding that PAO is a legal service and not a law firm, thus it should not be treated like a law firm when it comes to conflict of interest.
“Ako kasi naniniwala na ang PAO is serbisyo. Ito ay hindi law office. Ang conflict of interest frame of mind na pinamamalas ng PAO sa atin ay isang pagtingin sa kanilang opisina bilang isang law office. Hindi po, sila ay legal service ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Dapat naman manatiling ganun ‘yun (I believe that PAO is for service and not a law office. The PAO’s conflict of interest frame of mind comes when it sees itself as a law firm, which it is not. PAO is a legal service of the Republic of the Philippines. It should remain that way),” Remulla told reporters regarding the July 11 en banc resolution.
