MANILA — After the Supreme Court (SC) denied its request to delete a provision of a new code governing lawyers’ conduct, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) issued on Thursday an office order directing all of its lawyers to comply with section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), based on a copy obtained by ABS-CBN News.

After the Supreme Court denied its request to delete a provision of a new code governing lawyers’ conduct, the Public Attorney’s Office orders all of its lawyers to comply with section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. pic.twitter.com/zBEyBsMCUL

— Mike Navallo (@mikenavallo) July 14, 2023

Section 22 limits the invocation of “conflict of interest” to a PAO lawyer and his/her direct supervisor handling a case to allow other PAO lawyers to represent the other party.

PAO objected to this provision as it said this will pit one PAO lawyer against another but the Supreme Court came out with a ruling denying the request to delete the provision, reminding PAO instead of its primary mandate to extend legal assistance to the underprivileged.

The high court also required PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta to explain why she shouldn’t be cited in contempt of court or subjected to disciplinary action over her comments on the issue.

• SC requires PAO chief to explain why she shouldn’t be disciplined over position on lawyers’ code

In PAO Office Order No. 96, PAO ordered their lawyers to follow section 22.

“In as much as the Supreme Court had already publicly issued a press statement/release published in its official website on July 12, 2023: ‘SC Denies PAO Request to Delete Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA,’ we will hereby comply/adhere to the same,” the office order said.

“We hereby give the discretion and disposition as a lawyer to the individual resident public attorneys assigned in specific courts to comply with the said rule in relation to Sections 13 and 18, Canon III thereof,” it added.

Section 13 requires consent of all parties after disclosure if a lawyer represents conflicting interests.

Section 18 obligates lawyers to secure written informed consent of a former client if a prospective client has materially adverse interests in the same or related legal matter.

The same order however reminded PAO lawyers of Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor.

The provision imposes a penalty of between 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months and/or a fine of between P40,000 and P200,000 on a lawyer or his/her representative for a “malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance” that prejudices the client, or for revealing a client’s secrets which a lawyer obtained in his/her professional capacity.

The provision also requires consent of the first client if the lawyer later on defends the opposing party.

“PAO resident attorneys are likewise advised to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases to protect their life and limb as well as to avoid criminal and administrative liability,” it added.

The office order was signed by Acosta, her deputies, regional and other unit heads.

Copies were sent not just to PAO regional and unit heads but also to the offices of the President, Vice President, each of the 15 Supreme Court justices, the Court Administrator, the Executive Secretary, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and the Justice Secretary.

In a press conference Friday, Remulla confirmed receiving a “text” message from Acosta about PAO’s decision to comply with the CPRA provision.

“That’s good…I’m happy that they are complying but again, I’m saying that this conflict of interest aspect that they’re always bringing up should be forgotten in their culture because they are not an office, they are a service for the people of the Republic of the Philippines,” he said.

Asked about possible betrayal of client’s trust raised in the PAO office order, Remulla said: “That’s irrelevant to us.”

Remulla had earlier sided with the Supreme Court on the issue, saying PAO is not a law office but should be treated as a legal service.

• Remulla sides with Supreme Court on PAO ‘conflict of interest’ issue

Sought for comment, Acosta told ABS-CBN News she has yet to officially receive a copy of the SC resolution denying PAO’s request and requiring her to explain her actions.