By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
PAO VS. PAO: BALANCING POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE
The new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) took effect last May 30,
2023, fifteen (15) days after its publication. The CPRA is now the new bible of lawyers when it comes to
ethics in the practice of law. One of the contentious provisions thereof is Section 22, Canon III of the
CPRA which provides: “The Public Attorney’s Office is the primary legal aid service office of the
government. In the pursuit of its mandate under its charter, the Public Attorney’s Office shall ensure
ready access to its services by the marginalized sectors of society in a manner that takes into
consideration the avoidance of potential conflict of interest situations which will leave these
marginalized parties unassisted by counsel. A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public
Attorney’s Office in regard 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.”
I totally understand the predicament of PAO. For every PAO District Office, there is only one
Supervising Public Attorney and that is the District Head. I have had experience working in law firms,
wherein there are cases referred which will have the potential or possibility of a conflict of interest
arising. The remedy of law firms, especially those with big ones with so many Partners, Senior Associates
and Junior Associates, is to create separate teams and observe the so-called “China Wall”. I can attest
that in those instances, it really worked. Lawyers observed strict confidentiality and fidelity, not talking
about the cases during lunches or coffee breaks. But remember, in Legal Ethics, it should not only be
actual fidelity but the appearance thereof. How can you be certain that litigants, who will now be
represented by our dedicated Public Attorneys, will not look with suspicion if their lawyers are seen
having lunches and coffee breaks. This is a dilemma even to private practitioners that there was one
instance when two lawyers who are close friends decided to just take one vehicle going to RTC Talibon
to save fuel expenses. When they were already near the court, the lawyer who owns the car asked his
friend to get out of the car and walk the remaining 100 meters to the court so that they would not be
seen by their clients riding in one car.
I also see the wisdom of this amendment by the Supreme Court as there were several instances
wherein unscrupulous litigants, the would-be private complainant or plaintiff, even if they are
represented by counsel, would go to PAO to consult about the case so that the other party, defendant
or accused, can no longer avail the services, and be represented by PAO invoking conflict of interest. To
my mind, there would have been a remedy to this without Section 22, Cannon III of the CPRA, which is
to direct the prosecutorial arm of the government, the Department of Justice, to increase its
Prosecution Attorneys in various Prosecution Offices and they will be the ones who will be tasked by the
Supreme Court to assist in giving legal advice and preparation of Affidavits of indigent litigants who be
the would-be private complainants.
Now that the Supreme Court has denied the plea of the PAO to reconsider Section 22, Canon III
of the CPRA during its deliberations on July 11, 2023, in A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC, the Chief PAO, Persida
Rueda-Acosta, will have to see this development with silver lining for his office. My unsolicited advice is
for Chief Acosta to use this development to lobby for additional items with each District having two
Supervising Attorneys aside from the District Head. In that manner, aside from addressing the possible
conflict of interest with having only one Supervising Attorney, it will create vertical mobility or
promotion within the ranks and will motivate further our already diligent and dedicated Public
Attorneys. Chief Acosta may also wish to lobby to create modern physical offices wherein the Public
Attorneys will have separate rooms so that litigants will not see their lawyers, who are supposed to be at
odds in court on a particular case, having coffee side-by-side and throwing banter with each other
thereby creating the appearance of breaking confidentiality and fidelity. Regarding our Public Attorneys,
our panyeros and panyeras, we can be assured of their professionalism. What we are guarding against is
the perception of the litigants which will unnecessarily expose our Public Attorneys to possible
administrative cases. I am sure Chief Acosta, being a good public servant and administrator having
transformed the PAO these past years, will be able to pull this through.