SC fines PAO chief Acosta P180K for indirect contempt

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered Public Attorney's Office (PAO) Chief Persida V. Rueda- Acosta to pay a fine of P180,000 for indirect contempt due to her online tirades towards a new rule.

In a press statement, the SC en banc voted unanimously that Acosta's statements and innuendos on her Facebook page, which was accessible to the public, “attributed ill intent and malice to the Court”.

"SC En Banc unanimously voted to fine Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, the Chief of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), for indirect contempt of Court ... and for Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under... the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), for her actions in connection with her opposition to the proposed new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, which eventually became Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA," it said. 

The SC said Acosta attempted to sway public opinion to pressure the Court to adopt her position by launching a public campaign against the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO that was directed to public attorneys, PAO staff and clients, as well as publicizing the contents of the PAO's letters to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo where she requested for the rule's removal.
 

Acosta was fined P30,000 for indirect contempt of Court and P150,000 for Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses would “be dealt with more severely”.

The court also said Acosta violated Sections 2 and 14, Canon II of the CPRA, which require lawyers to respect courts, submit grievances against court officers only through the proper remedy and before the proper authorities, and refrain from making unfounded statements insinuating improper motive.

The Chief Public Attorney also violated CPRA social media use rules, according to the SC.

"Furthermore, Atty. Acosta was deemed to have violated her duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the Court and to promote respect for laws and legal processes under Section 2, Canon II and Section 2, Canon III of the CPRA for issuing Office Order No. 96, Series of 2023 (Office Order)", the SC said.

“Instead of enjoining public attorneys to strictly comply with the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, the Office Order instigated disobedience to the rule and implied that the Court, by adopting the new conflict of interest rule for PAO, unduly exposed the PAO lawyers not only to criminal and administrative liability but also to physical danger," added the SC.—RF, GMA Integrated News