Public Attorney’s Office chief Persida Acosta is appealing to the Supreme Court to remove a provision in the newly approved New Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability or Canon III due to conflict of interest.
Along with eight other senior officials, Acosta, in a 22-page letter, “humbly and respectfully” urged Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo to omit Section 22, Canon III of the New Code stating that “the current client’s written informed consent to the conflict-of-interest representation is no longer necessary.”
PAO maintained that there is conflict of interest when a public defender would represent the accused and another public defender on behalf of the complainant in one and the same case.
“With due respect and without any intention of challenging the authority and prerogatives of this Honorable Court in setting standards of conduct for all members of the legal profession, but only for the purpose of ensuring constitutional guarantees, we most humbly submit that the subject provision in the New Code violates the 1987 Constitution, viz: equal protection of the law,” the April 20 letter read.
Acosta said that based on PAO’s experience, its indigent clients would never agree for their adversaries to be represented by PAO.
She said their clients “are always in a state of helplessness, hopelessness and desperation,” and because of their “dire financial standing and being so lowly in life, they come to PAO very uncertain and insecure as to whether they will indeed obtain justice and whether their free government lawyers will be as loyal, diligent, persistent and competent as private practitioners.”
“Conflict-of-interest representation would most definitely add to their doubts and insecurities,” she added.
Such representation may be abused in labor cases filed by unpaid or unlawfully dismissed workers against employers who would also be represented by a PAO lawyer, too, she lamented.
“The sacred trust relationship between the PAO and its clients would be seriously marred if public attorneys would be allowed to go against each other,” PAO said.
“We humbly submit that Section 22, Canon III might give a current PAO client the impression that he is being blindsided as it says ‘such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from PAO representing the affected client upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.’”
Acosta cited Republic Act 9406 or the PAO Law, saying “allowing two lawyers to represent conflicting clients before one court/tribunal would be contrary to the organizational set-up as provided in the PAO Law — a valid law duly enacted by Legislature.”
On April 12, the Supreme Court in an en banc decision in Baguio City unanimously approved the New Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.