SC fines PAO chief P180,000 for contempt

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has slapped a fine of P180,000 on Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida Acosta over her statements against the “conflict of interest” provision in the new lawyers’ code of conduct, citing her for indirect contempt and grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

According to the SC Public Information Office (PIO), the High Court found Acosta’s statements and innuendos on her Facebook page “attributed ill intent and malice to the Court.”

The SC also found that Acosta “tried to sway public opinion to pressure the SC” against the said provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) when the PAO chief launched a public campaign against the provision and publicizing the contents of the PAO’s letters to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo requesting the deletion of the same rule.

Under Section 22 of the CPRA, conflict of interest is only limited to any of the PAO lawyers and the lawyer’s direct supervisor, allowing PAO lawyers to represent opposing parties.

The CPRA, which was launched last April, replaced the 34-year-old Code of Professional Responsibility that governs lawyers.

In July last year, the SC denied the request and reminded PAO of its mandate to provide free legal services to marginalized parties.

The high tribunal also ordered Acosta to explain why she should not be charged administratively for issuing an office order that gave public attorneys the “discretion and disposition” to comply with the provision of the CPRA.

The SC called Acosta’s sentiments, which she aired on social media, as “unabated public tirades.”

Acosta has since issued an apology for her statements.

“Atty. Acosta’s actions violated Sections 2 and 14, Canon II of the CPRA which enjoin lawyers to respect the courts, to submit grievances against court officers only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities and to refrain from making unfounded statements insinuating improper motive on the part of court officers,” the SC PIO said.

The SC ordered Acosta to pay a P30,000 fine for indirect contempt and P150,000 for grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Aside from Acosta, also found guilty of indirect contempt was Erwin Erfe, who also wrote a Facebook post accusing the SC of judicial tyranny over the conflict of interest provision.

He was ordered to pay a fine of P10,000 after submitting his Most Humble Apology, explaining that his now-deleted Facebook post was spurred by his emotions.

He added that he already saw the rationale behind the conflict of interest provision and expressed willingness to fully comply.

The SC warned Acosta and Erfe that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.