The Supreme Court (SC) has denied the request of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) to take away a provision on battle of curiosity in its Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which governs the conduct of legal professionals in non-public {and professional} issues.
PAO chief Persida Acosta beforehand requested the SC to take away Section 22 or the rule on battle of curiosity, claiming that the supply will not be obligatory and should set PAO legal professionals towards one another.
However, the SC reminded PAO that its primordial mandate is to “extend free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative, and other quasi-judicial cases.”
“To turn away indigent litigants and bar them from availing of the services of all PAO lawyers nationwide due to alleged conflict of interest would be to contravene PAO’s principal duty and leave hundreds of poor litigants unassisted by legal counsel they cannot otherwise afford,” the SC stated.
Section 22 states that “a conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the PAO incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor.”
It provides that “such conflict of interest will not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from PAO from representing the affected client.”
Indirect contempt
Meanwhile, the excessive court docket requested Acosta to indicate trigger why she shouldn’t be cited in oblique contempt for her social media posts and newspaper publications “which tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”
“Furthermore, the Court characterized Atty. Acosta’s resort to social and print media to air her unfounded grievances against the Court as a threat to the independence of the judiciary,” it stated.
“The Court thus ordered Atty. Acosta to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar,” the SC added.
When searched for remark, Acosta stated PAO will look forward to the official copy of the decision.
The CPRA, which revises the 34-year-old Code of Professional Responsibility that was promulgated in 1988, was launched on April 13. It took impact on May 30.
“CPRA is no mere revision; it is an overhaul —an overhaul on the approach and attitude of lawyers of their ethical responsibility in the new era of law practice— an era of more attuned, more responsible, and more accountable legal practice,” Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo stated throughout the launching of the CPRA.
Gesmundo stated the CPRA additionally revises the lawyer’s oath “to conform to the duties and responsibilities” of the occupation. —KBK, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
