The Supreme Court (SC) has issued anew a show cause order against Public Attorney&rsquo;s Office (PAO) Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta to explain why she should not be administratively disciplined for releasing a certain office order in relation to the new code of conduct for lawyers.
Earlier this month, Acosta <a href="https://www.dzrh.com.ph/post/pao-orders-offices-to-comply-with-'conflict-of-interest'-provision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">issued a PAO Office Order</a> No. 096, Series of 2023 which directed all PAO offices to comply with the "conflict of interest" provision in the lawyers' Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
She issued the order shortly after the higher court <a href="https://www.dzrh.com.ph/post/sc-denies-acosta's-plea-to-remove-a-provision-in-lawyer's-code" target="_blank" rel="noopener">denied her plea to delete Section 22 Canon III or the "Conflict of Interest"</a>, citing that the removal may "contravene to POA's principal duty" to extend legal assistance to indigent individuals who are facing criminal, civil, labor, administrative, and other quasi-judicial cases.
In a <a href="https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-orders-pao-chief-to-show-cause-why-she-should-not-be-disciplined-as-a-member-of-the-bar-for-issuing-pao-office-order-no-096-series-of-2023/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> on Tuesday, SC Public Information Office (PIO) said the higher court en banc unanimously agreed to direct the PAO Chief "to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with"&nbsp;as a Member of the Bar for releasing the aforementioned order.
"The Court deemed the foregoing instructions in Atty. Acosta&rsquo;s Office Order as belligerent and disrespectful as she effectively accused the Court of directly exposing the Public Attorneys not only to criminal and administrative liability but also physical danger," it said.&nbsp;
"Thus, although it presented itself as a directive to comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA, the Office Order further instigated disobedience to the said rule," the SC PIO added.
The higher court first issued show cause against Acosta to justify "why she should not be cited in indirect contempt for her social media posts and newspaper publications" that tackled the conflict of interest provision.
Acosta earlier publicly apologized to the SC for her recent actions and assured them that they will be adhering to the provision.&nbsp; &nbsp;

you might like

SC issues anew show cause vs. Acosta over office order on lawyer's code