Atin Ito First Filipino Community Newspaper in Ontario
PUBLIC Attorney’s Office (PAO) Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta apologized to the Supreme Court after it had ordered her to explain why she should not be cited for indirect contempt over her “social media posts and newspaper publications” on the issue of conflict of interest.
At the same time, Rueda-Acosta in a statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Manila Times, asked for the high tribunal’s understanding.
“To our beloved justices of the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Public Attorney’s Office, and all public attorneys nationwide, I humbly and most respectfully apologize if you may have been hurt by the circumstances,” Rueda-Acosta said.
Rueda-Acosta said that the arguments raised were brought about by their passion to efficiently serve their clients and the poor and needy, “which we have been inculcating in our lawyers’ practice.”
“That is why we fear what may happen to our clients and lawyers,” she added.
Conveying her “utmost respect and love to the Supreme Court,” the PAO chief reiterated her apologies as she assured the high tribunal that all public lawyers under her turf will abide by the provisions of the newly-approved Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
Rueda-Acosta was referring to CPRA’s Section 22, Canon 3 that states: “A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor. Such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from PAO from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.”
She has since then written Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo requesting for the removal or deletion of the provision, saying PAO only wanted to avoid such instances wherein public lawyers that come from one office will be pitted against each other in one particular civil or criminal case during a trial.
She said this would create an impression that the justice system in the Philippines was a sham.
But in its order, which also dismissed PAO’s request to delete the CPRA provisions, the high tribunal directed Rueda-Acosta to explain why she should not be cited in indirect contempt for her “her social media posts and newspaper publications which tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”
The high court said that PAO’s primordial mandate is to extend free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial services.
To turn away indigent litigants and bar them from availing their services contravenes their office’s principal duty, it said.
Prior to her public apology, Rueda-Acosta had assured the top magistrates that they would comply with the high court’s order that rejected PAO’s petition.
“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 3 thereof,” the PAO officials said.
Aside from Rueda-Acosta, key PAO officials signed the office order for all public lawyers nationwide.
They were Deputy Chief Public Attorney Silvestre Mosing, Deputy Chief Public Attorney Ana Lisa Soriano, National Capital Region-Regional Director Marlon Buan, Forensics Division Chief Erwin Erfe and Region 4-A Director Revelyn Ramos-Dacpano, concurrent head executive assistant.
Rueda-Acosta said public attorneys are likewise advised to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases to protect themselves and avoid criminal and administrative liabilities.
— Arlie O. Calalo
*****
Credit belongs to: www.manilatimes.net
