G.R. No.: A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC. Date: February 27, 2024.
Case Title/Parties: Request of the Public Attorney’s Office to Delete Section 22, Canon III of the Proposed Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO).

FACTS

1. On April 28, 2023, the Supreme Court received a letter from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), through its Chief Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, requesting the deletion of Section 22, Canon III of the then-proposed Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). The PAO argued the provision was discriminatory and detrimental. A follow-up letter was received on June 7, 2023.
2. In a Resolution dated July 11, 2023, the Court denied the PAO’s request. The Court ruled that the CPRA, including Section 22, Canon III, was promulgated pursuant to its constitutional rule-making power and its duty to provide legal assistance to the underprivileged. The Court found the provision promoted access to legal aid by limiting the imputation of conflict of interest within PAO to only the involved lawyer and direct supervisor, not the entire office.
3. In the same July 11 Resolution, the Court took note of Atty. Acosta’s “disturbing actions” in publicly opposing the rule. She had made social media posts appealing to the public to stand against the provision, maligned the Court for adopting it, launched a campaign featuring videos of PAO personnel and clients disagreeing with it, and publicized the contents of PAO’s letters to the Chief Justice through media. The Court directed her to show cause why she should not be cited for indirect contempt and disciplined for violating the CPRA.
4. On July 14, 2023, the Court received a copy of Office Order No. 096 issued by Atty. Acosta in response to the Court’s denial. The Court found this Order instigated disobedience to the CPRA. In a Resolution dated July 25, 2023, the Court directed her to show cause for this additional act.
5. In her compliance pleadings, Atty. Acosta did not deny the acts. She pleaded for mercy, apologized, claimed her statements were humble requests for reconsideration without intent to influence the Court or impede justice, and stated she had deleted the related posts. She explained the Office Order was issued due to clamor for guidelines and differing judicial interpretations of the new rule.
6. Atty. Acosta later issued Office Order No. 102 to amend and delete the offending statements from the earlier Office Order and subsequently filed a Manifestation reporting the PAO’s full compliance with Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta is liable for indirect contempt and for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) for her public statements and actions opposing Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA and for issuing an office order perceived as instigating non-compliance.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta is guilty of indirect contempt and is adjudged administratively liable for violating the CPRA.
1. On Indirect Contempt: The Court found Atty. Acosta’s actions constituted indirect contempt. Her public campaign, which included social media posts and videos maligning the Court’s adoption of the rule and rallying public opposition, was a clear attempt to mobilize public opinion to pressure the Court into reconsidering its decision. This conduct tended to degrade the administration of justice and bring the Court’s authority into disrespect. The issuance of Office Order No. 096, which the Court viewed as instigating non-compliance, further compounded her contemptuous behavior. Her apologies and subsequent compliance, while mitigating, did not absolve her of the liability already incurred.
2. On Administrative Liability: The Court found Atty. Acosta violated specific canons of the CPRA:
* Canon II, Section 2 (Prohibiting conduct that undermines public confidence in the courts): Her public statements eroded public trust in the Judiciary’s rule-making process.
* Canon II, Section 14 (Duty to uphold the dignity of the legal profession): Her actions fell short of the dignity required of a lawyer.
* Canon II, Section 42 (Duty to avoid influence through public opinion): She improperly attempted to use public pressure to influence a judicial proceeding.
* Canon III, Section 2 (Duty to avoid scandalous, offensive, or menacing conduct): Her public campaign and the language of her Office Order were offensive to the Court.
3. Penalty: Considering the mitigating factors (her apologies, deletion of posts, issuance of a corrective office order, and manifestation of full compliance), the Court imposed a FINE of ₱50,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court emphasized that while lawyers have the right to criticize judicial rules, it must be done respectfully and through proper channels, not through methods that pressure the Court or damage public confidence in the Judiciary.