AM 23 05 05 SC; (July, 2023) (Digest)
A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC. July 11, 2023.
Request of the Public Attorney’s Office to Delete Section 22, Canon III of the Proposed Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
FACTS
The Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, wrote letters to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo dated April 20, 2023, and June 6, 2023. She prayed for: (1) the removal of Section 22, Canon III of the proposed Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which contains a specific conflict-of-interest rule for the PAO, so that public attorneys would be governed by the general provisions applicable to all lawyers; and (2) the temporary non-implementation of the said section pending a review of its constitutionality and potential detrimental effects. The Court noted that these concerns were mere reiterations of her earlier comments, which had already been completely passed upon and deliberated during the extensive consultations prior to the CPRA’s approval on April 11, 2023. The CPRA was published on May 14, 2023, and took effect on May 30, 2023.
ISSUE
Whether Section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which provides a specific rule on conflict of interest for the Public Attorney’s Office, is valid and constitutional.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the request of the PAO Chief. The Court upheld the validity and constitutionality of Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA. The Court ruled that its promulgation was a valid exercise of its constitutional power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution to regulate the practice of law. The assailed provision was crafted to balance the need to preserve the fiduciary lawyer-client relationship with the mandate to ensure access to justice for indigent clients. It recognizes that unlike other clients, indigent clients who rely on the PAO may be left without legal representation if a conflict of interest disqualifies the entire office. Therefore, the rule provides that a conflict of interest incident to services rendered for the PAO shall be imputed only to the concerned lawyer and his/her direct supervisor, and shall not disqualify the rest of the PAO lawyers from representing the affected client, subject to full disclosure and written informed consent. This is analogous to the rule for legal services organizations under Section 20, Canon III. The Court found the provision to be a reasonable regulation grounded in the State’s constitutional duty to provide free legal assistance to the underprivileged and the PAO’s charter. The Court also directed Atty. Acosta to SHOW CAUSE why she should not be cited for indirect contempt and disciplined for violations of the CPRA, and directed her and all PAO lawyers to refrain from making further statements on the matter.