The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) has issued an office order directing all of its lawyers to comply with section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) as mandated by the Supreme Court (SC) on the issue of conflict of interest.
Section 22 limits the invocation of “conflict of interest” to a PAO lawyer and his/her direct supervisor handling a case to allow other PAO lawyers to represent the opposing party, the SC clarified.
PAO earlier questioned this provision saying it would pit one PAO lawyer against another, but the SC issued a resolution denying PAO’s request to delete the provision.
The High Tribunal reminded the PAO that its primordial mandate is to provide legal assistance to the underprivileged, regardless of which side of the case the litigant is.
The SC also required PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta to explain why she shouldn’t be cited for contempt of court or subjected to disciplinary action over her comments on the issue.
In PAO Office Order No. 96, the agency directed its lawyers to follow section 22.
“In as much as the Supreme Court had already publicly issued a press statement/release published in its official website on July 12, 2023: ‘SC Denies PAO Request to Delete Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA,’ we will hereby comply/adhere to the same,” the PAO order stated.
“We hereby give the discretion and disposition as a lawyer to the individual resident public attorneys assigned in specific courts to comply with the said rule in relation to Sections 13 and 18, Canon III thereof,” it added.
Section 13 of the CPRA requires consent of all parties after disclosure if a lawyer represents conflicting interests.
On the other hand, Section 18 obligates lawyers to secure written informed consent of a former client if a prospective client has materially adverse interests in the same or related legal matter.
The same order however reminded PAO lawyers of Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor.
The provision imposes a penalty of between 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months and/or a fine of between P40,000 and P200,000 on a lawyer or his/her representative for a “malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance” that prejudices the client, or for revealing a client’s secrets which a lawyer obtained in his/her professional capacity. Rio Araja
The provision also requires consent of the first client if the lawyer later on defends the opposite party.
“PAO resident attorneys are likewise advised to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases to protect their life and limb as well as to avoid criminal and administrative liability,” the order said.
It was signed by Acosta, her deputies, regional and other unit heads.
Copies have not been circulated to PAO regional and unit heads, as well as but also to the offices of the President, Vice President, each of the 15 Supreme Court justices, the Court Administrator, the Executive Secretary, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and the Justice Secretary.
In a press conference on Friday, Remulla confirmed receiving a “text” message from Acosta about PAO’s decision to comply with the CPRA provision.
“That’s good…I’m happy that they are complying but again, I’m saying that this conflict of interest aspect that they’re always bringing up should be forgotten in their culture because they are not an office, they are a service for the people of the Republic of the Philippines,” he said.
Asked about possible betrayal of client’s trust raised in the PAO office order, Remulla said: “That’s irrelevant to us.”
Remulla has rallied behind the Supreme Court on the issue, saying PAO is not a law office but should be treated as a legal service.
Meanwhile, Acosta said she has yet to receive a copy of the SC resolution denying PAO’s request and requiring her to explain her actions on the issue.