SC denies PAO request to remove conflict of interest provision in lawyer’s code

The Supreme Court (SC) has denied the request of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) to remove a provision on conflict of interest in its Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which governs the conduct of lawyers in private and professional matters.

PAO chief Persida Acosta previously asked the SC to remove Section 22 or the rule on conflict of interest, claiming that the provision is not necessary and may set PAO lawyers against each other.

However, the SC reminded PAO that its primordial mandate is 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 leave hundreds of poor litigants unassisted by legal counsel they cannot otherwise afford,” the SC said.

Section 22 states that "a conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the PAO incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor."

It adds that "such conflict of interest will not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from PAO from representing the affected client."

Indirect contempt

Meanwhile, the high court asked 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.”

“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,” it said.

“The Court thus ordered Atty. Acosta to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar,” the SC added.

When sought for comment, Acosta said PAO will wait for the official copy of the resolution.

The CPRA, which revises the 34-year-old Code of Professional Responsibility that was promulgated in 1988, was launched on April 13. It took effect on May 30. 

“CPRA is no mere revision; it is an overhaul —an overhaul on the approach and attitude of lawyers of their ethical responsibility in the new era of law practice— an era of more attuned, more responsible, and more accountable legal practice,” Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said during the launching of the CPRA.

Gesmundo said the CPRA also revises the lawyer’s oath “to conform to the duties and responsibilities” of the profession. 

Remulla

Sought for comment, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla expressed support to the SC decision.

“Nasa ating Constitution na every person is entitled to counsel. Kaya nga ho tayo may PAO para ho ang karapatan na ito ay maging totoo sa bawat Pilipino,” he said in a media briefing.

(It is in our Constitution that every person is entitled to counsel. That’s why we have PAO, to ensure that this right will remain true for all Filipinos.)

“Tama po ang tingin ko ginagawa ng Korte Suprema. Naniniwala po ako sa mga pakay na panagutin ang lahat upang maipagtanggol natin ang karapatan ng bawat tao na magkaroon ng abugado,” he added.

(I think the Supreme Court did the right thing. I believe in the goal to hold hold people accountable to defend the right of every Filipino to counsel.)

Remulla said that some cases experienced problems or delays due to the PAO’s position on conflict of interest. He also said PAO is a “legal service” and not a “law office.”

The Justice Secretary said the Court also disapproved of lawyers using social media.

“Sapagkat harapin mo na lang ang husgado, huwag ka lang magsabi sa tao. Kapag magsabi ka sa tao, parang binastos mo ako. Kaya hindi dapat ginagawa yun,” Remulla said.

Remulla expressed hope that it will be clear to PAO that everyone should respect the decisions of the Supreme Court. —KBK, GMA Integrated News