Understanding Conflict of Interest Rules for Public Attorneys in the Philippines

A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC, July 11, 2023

Imagine being an indigent litigant, relying on the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) for legal representation. What happens when a conflict of interest arises? Can the PAO still represent you? This was the core issue before the Supreme Court in a recent case, clarifying the application of conflict of interest rules to the PAO and its lawyers.

The Supreme Court addressed a request from the PAO to remove a specific section of the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) concerning conflict of interest. This ruling has significant implications for access to justice, particularly for the marginalized sectors of Philippine society.

The Legal Framework: Regulating the Practice of Law

The Supreme Court’s authority to regulate the practice of law is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. Section 5(5), Article VIII grants the Court the power to “promulgate rules concerning…the admission to the practice of law…and legal assistance to the underprivileged.” This power allows the Court to set the standards of conduct for all lawyers in the country.

One such standard is the avoidance of conflicts of interest. The CPRA, which superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), dedicates significant attention to this issue. Section 13, Canon III of the CPRA defines conflict of interest as existing “when a lawyer represents inconsistent or opposing interests of two or more persons.” The test is whether the lawyer’s duty to fight for one client conflicts with their duty to oppose for another.

The CPRA acknowledges the complexities of conflict of interest, especially within organizations like the PAO, which provides free legal services. Section 22, Canon III, the provision at the heart of this case, addresses this directly: “A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor. Such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.”

This rule aims to balance the need to avoid conflicts with the constitutional right of indigent persons to legal representation.

The Case: PAO’s Request and the Supreme Court’s Decision

Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, Chief of the PAO, requested the Supreme Court to remove Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA. Her argument was that PAO should be treated like a regular law firm, where a conflict involving one lawyer disqualifies the entire firm. She argued that clients engage the PAO based on trust in the entire office, not just an individual lawyer.

The Supreme Court denied the PAO’s request, upholding the validity and importance of Section 22, Canon III. The Court emphasized that the PAO’s primary mandate is to provide free legal assistance to indigent persons. Limiting the conflict of interest rule to the handling lawyers ensures that more indigent clients have access to legal representation. The Court found that the PAO is fundamentally different from private law firms in several key aspects:

• Creation and Governance: PAO is created by law (EO 292, RA 9406), while private firms are formed by agreement.
• Clientele: PAO serves primarily indigent clients, while private firms can choose their clients.
• Profit Motive: PAO is non-profit, while private firms operate for profit.

“To reiterate, the policy behind Sec. 22, Canon III of the CPRA is to promote the poor’s access to legal assistance by limiting the imputation of conflict of interest to public attorneys who had actual participation in the case,” the Court stated. The court emphasized that, unlike paying clients who can seek legal assistance elsewhere, indigent clients often rely solely on the PAO for representation.

The Court also addressed concerns raised by Atty. Acosta regarding the PAO’s organizational structure and operations manual, finding no inconsistencies with Section 22, Canon III.

Furthermore, the Court took issue with Atty. Acosta’s public statements and social media posts criticizing the CPRA, directing her to show cause why she should not be cited for indirect contempt and disciplined as a member of the bar. The court reminded her of the duty to respect the courts.

Practical Implications: Access to Justice for the Marginalized

This ruling reinforces the PAO’s role as a vital resource for indigent litigants. By limiting the imputation of conflict of interest, the Supreme Court ensures that more individuals have access to legal representation, even when a conflict arises for a specific PAO lawyer.

For PAO lawyers, this means a continued commitment to serving the underserved, while adhering to ethical standards. It also underscores the importance of transparency and obtaining informed consent from clients when a potential conflict exists.

Key Lessons

• The PAO has a distinct mandate to provide legal assistance to the poor.
• Conflict of interest rules are applied differently to the PAO to ensure access to justice.
• Transparency and informed consent are crucial when potential conflicts arise.
• Lawyers must maintain respect for the courts and the legal system.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a conflict of interest?

A: A conflict of interest arises when a lawyer’s duty to one client is inconsistent with or opposed to their duty to another client.

Q: How does Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA affect the PAO?

A: It limits the imputation of conflict of interest within the PAO, allowing other PAO lawyers to represent a client even if a conflict exists for a specific lawyer and their supervisor.

Q: What should a PAO lawyer do if a conflict of interest arises?

A: The lawyer must fully disclose the conflict to the client and obtain their written informed consent before proceeding with the representation.

Q: Does this ruling mean that PAO lawyers can ignore conflicts of interest?

A: No. PAO lawyers must still adhere to ethical standards and ensure that their representation is not compromised by the conflict.

Q: What are the potential consequences for lawyers who violate conflict of interest rules?

A: Lawyers who violate conflict of interest rules may face disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment.

Q: What is indirect contempt of court?

A: Indirect contempt of court involves actions that tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

Q: What is the role of the Chief Public Attorney?

A: The Chief Public Attorney is responsible for overseeing the operations of the PAO and ensuring that it fulfills its mandate to provide legal assistance to indigent persons.

ASG Law specializes in litigation and legal ethics. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.