The Public Attorney’s Office on Thursday vowed to adhere with the Supreme Court (SC) resolution allowing two public defenders to represent the accused and the complainant in one and the same case.
PAO chief Persida Acosta advised all regional public attorneys to respect the High Court’s resolution that rejected PAO’s appeal to review and amend a conflict-of-interest provision of Section 22, Canon III of the newly approved Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
Acosta advised the public lawyers to reconcile the SC resolution with the provisions of Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code to avoid criminal responsibility and imprisonment considering that penal provision requires the consent also of the first client.
She urged the resident public attorneys 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.”
On Wednesday, the High Court turned down PAO’s request to remove the conflict-of-interest provision of CPRA.
“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.
The High Tribunal 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 leave hundreds of poor litigants unassisted by legal counsel they cannot otherwise afford,” it added.
The questioned provision sought to be deleted by PAO 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 the Public Attorney’s Office from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.”
The SC likewise directed 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” and characterized her resort to social and print media to air her unfounded grievances against the SC as a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla said he had misgivings about PAO’s position on the matter.
