By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
STILL ON PAO VS. PAO: WILL IT RESULT TO MASSIVE AMICABLE SETTLEMENTS WHICH WOULD DECLOG
COURT DOCKETS?
When the Chief Public Attorney, Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta, apologized to the Supreme Court,
we all thought that the issue would be laid to rest. If we will recall, the Chief Public Attorney wrote the
Supreme Court a letter seeking for reconsideration of Section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability (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.” In its deliberations last July 11, 2023, in A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC, the
Supreme Court unanimously denied the plea of PAO and issued a show cause order to Atty. Acosta why
she should not be cited in contempt.
However, during its En Banc deliberations last 25 July 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously
directed Atty. Acosta to show cause why she should not be held administratively liable as a member of
the Philippine Bar for issuing PAO Office Order No. 096, Series of 2023, in response to the earlier
resolution of the Supreme Court directing the PAO to strictly comply with Section 22, Canon III of the
CPRA. The said Office Order supposedly gave the Public Attorneys the “discretion and disposition” to
comply with Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA to reconcile the said provision with Article 209 of the
Revised Penal Code, which penalizes betrayal of trust and revelation of secrets by lawyers, to avoid any
criminal responsibility and imprisonment, implying that complying with the said provision of the CPRA
will amount to commission of such felony. The said Office Order also supposedly directed Public
Attorneys to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases “to protect their life
and limb” insinuating that complying with the said provision endangers the life and limb of the Public
Attorneys.
In its Press Release on the same day, the Supreme Court Public Information Office stated that
“The Court deemed the foregoing instructions in Atty. Acosta’s Office Order as belligerent and
disrespectful as she effectively accused the Court of directly exposing the Public Attorneys not only to
criminal and administrative liability, but also physical danger. Thus, although it presented itself as a
directive to comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA, the Office Order further instigated
disobedience to the said rule.”
In my previous column on the matter, I offered an unsolicited advice for the Chief Public
Attorney to see this development with a silver lining by asking for budget augmentation for
infrastructure (separate rooms for each Public Attorney), more supervisory items (adding Supervising
Public Attorneys to build “China Wall” or teams within each PAO District), among others, to address the
concerns raised of exposing to possible allegation of conflict of interest. Secretary of Justice, Hon. Jesus
Crispin Remulla, should support the Chief PAO in lobbying for these operational reforms to comply with
Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA but mitigate, if not eliminate, the scenarios raised by the Chief Public
Attorney.
One final positive outlook on this development is that if it is PAO vs. PAO handling cases, would
it not promote amicable settlement of cases which would declog our court dockets? Public Attorneys
may convince their clients to settle their disputes amicably. Anyway, Section 8 of the same Canon III of
the CPRA provides that it is the lawyer’s duty to encourage settlement, to wit: “A lawyer shall encourage
the client to avoid, end or settle a controversy, whether pending or not, in order to reach a settlement or
a compromise if the matter can be compromised under the law and will admit of a fair settlement. To
this end, the lawyer shall actively assist the parties and the court, tribunal, or other government agency
to effect mediation and/or dispute resolution.”