The Supreme Court has ordered Public Attorney’s Office head Persida Acosta to explain why she should not be disciplined as a lawyer and held in contempt for her “unabated” social media posts and newspaper publications that “tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”
The SC issued the show cause order as it denied PAO’s appeal to delete Section 22 of Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) which limits the invocation by PAO lawyers of the rule on conflict of interest.
The PAO earlier challenged before the high court the CPRA’s Section 22 of Canon III which states that a conflict of interest of any of the PAO lawyers shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor and shall not disqualify the rest of the PAO lawyers from representing the affected client.
In a resolution, the SC 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.’”
“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 leavehundreds of poor litigants unassisted by legal counsel they cannot otherwise afford,” the SC resolution stated.
In her public statements, newspaper publications, and social media posts as well as and in letters sent to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo and the 14 other SC justices, Acosta, acting on behalf of PAO, claimed the CPRA provision allows PAO lawyers to be pitted against each other before the courts by representing opposing parties in cases.
Acosta said the provision “puts at risk the life and limb of the handling public attorneys because if things go wrong, clients would have enough reason to suspect that their counsels double-crossed them.”
“There were instances when conflict-of-interest representation was thecause of death of former public attorneys,” she added.
PAO has asked the Supreme Court for a dialogue on its request.
The High Court, however, noted Acosta’s unabated public tirades against Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA through social and mainstream media.
“The Court thus directed Atty. Acosta to show cause 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,” the SC said.
“Furthermore, the Court characterized Atty. Acosta’s resort to social and print media to air her unfounded grievances against the Court as a threat to the independence of the judiciary. The Court thus ordered Atty. Acosta to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar,” the SC added.
The SC added that “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,” it said.
Earlier, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) had expressed its full support for the implementation of CPRA.
In its statement, the IBP said it remains “confident in the Court’s intention and objective to reflect the values of fairness, justice, and ethical practice as envisioned in the CPRA to the benefit of the entire legal community and the public.”
“The subject provision is in consonance with the constitutionally provided right of all persons to equal protection of law by ensuring that all parties are afforded their right to counsel,” the IBP said.