Amid the Supreme Court’s (SC) approval of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) has raised concerns over a conflict of interest between two public defenders both representing the accused and the plaintiff in just one and the same case.
PAO chief Persia’s Acosta, along with the agency’s senior officials, said Canon III, Section 12 of A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC defines conflict of interest ”when a lawyer represents inconsistent or opposing interests of two or more persons.”
In an April 9 respectful manifesto, Acosta and the other ranking public defenders cited “the test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but which is his or her duty to oppose for the other client.”
“We respectfully appeal to the High Court to consider our issue that shall adversely affect the operation of PAI and the interest of the clients,” its plea read.
The appearance of two PAO lawyers in a single sala (court), one for the defendant and one for the plaintiff, might erode public trust, the agency cited.
“With the proposed Section 21 of Canon III, district public attorneys (supervisors) could no longer exercise supervisory functions over the second lawyer who would handle the case of the conflicting client as he or she is already barried due to conflict of interest,” it said.
The SC yesterday announced that its en banc has already unanimously approved the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability in Baguio City. Earlier, PAO “Section 21 Canon III singles out the PAO as it gives an added definition to the conflict of interest which is not applicable to other lawyers in general. This circumstance violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.”
