Chief public attorney, Dr. Persida Rueda-Acosta, of the Public Attorney's Office. Mark Demayo, ABS-CBN News/File

MANILA -- The Supreme Court en banc unanimously voted to order Public Attorney’s Office chief Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta to pay a fine of P30,000 for indirect contempt of court and P150,000 for grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In a statement, the court said it also gave Acosta a stern warning that a similar offense will result to more severe punishment.

The decision of the court arose from the actions and statements of Acosta in connection with her opposition to the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO under Section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

The court said Acosta’s statements on Facebook 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 SC said.

In the September 24, 2023 resolution of the court denying the request of Acosta, the en banc said the policy behind Section 22 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 a particular case.

The court stated that instead of enjoining public attorneys to strictly comply with the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, Acosta’s office order instigated disobedience instead of enjoining public attorneys to strictly comply with the rule.

The SC likewise found PAO forensics laboratory chief Atty. Erwin Erfe guilty of indirect contempt of court for a Facebook post accusing the court of judicial tyranny. 

In a separate statement, the SC has  ordered Erfe to pay a fine of P10,000 with a stern warning that a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. 

The Supreme Court noted that in his deleted post, Erfe made the accusation following the resolution of the court on Section 22 of the Canon III of the CPRA. 

The Supreme Court noted that while Erfe has already submitted his “most humble apology” and that he has seen the rationale behind Section 22, his earlier remark was without any basis and aimed at impairing public confidence in the court. 

The Supreme Court also said Erfe exposed the court to “public ridicule and mockery”. 

“Furthermore, his conduct was violative of the sub judice rule, because it not only attempted to sway the public perception against the court, it likewise imputed improper motives against its members,” the SC said.