SC Fines PAO Chief for Indirect Contempt of Court and Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
February 27, 2024
On February 27, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc unanimously voted to fine Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta (Atty. Acosta), the Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), for indirect contempt of court under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and for Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under Section 33, Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), for her actions in connection with her opposition to the proposed new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, which eventually became Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA.
It was determined that Atty. Acosta’s statements and innuendos on her Facebook page, which was accessible to the public, attributed ill intent and malice to the Court. The Court also found that by launching a public campaign against the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO using public attorneys and the PAO’s staff and clients and publicizing the contents of the PAO’s letters to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo requesting the deletion of the same rule, Atty. Acosta tried to sway the public opinion in order to pressure the Court into yielding to her position.
The Court ruled that, aside from constituting indirect contempt, Atty. Acosta’s acts amounted to Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under Section 33(i), Canon VI of the CPRA as the same undermined the public’s confidence in the Court and, consequently, the orderly administration of justice. 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. Atty. Acosta was also found to have transgressed the CPRA provisions on the responsible use of social media.
Furthermore, Atty. Acosta was deemed to have violated her duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the Court and to promote respect for laws and legal processes under Section 2, Canon II and Section 2, Canon III of the CPRA for issuing Office Order No. 96, Series of 2023 (Office Order). Instead of enjoining public attorneys to strictly comply with the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, the Office Order instigated disobedience to the rule and implied that the Court, by adopting the new conflict of interest rule for PAO, unduly exposed the PAO lawyers not only to criminal and administrative liability, but also to physical danger.
Atty. Acosta was meted the penalty of fine in the amount of PHP 30,000.00 for indirect contempt of court and PHP 150,000.00 for Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.
The Supreme Court – Public Information Office will upload a copy of the ruling in A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC to the Supreme Court website once it receives the same from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc.