Facts:

 The Chief of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, sent a letter to
Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo requesting the removal of Section 22, Canon III of the
Proposed Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
 Atty. Acosta argued that public attorneys should be governed by the remaining provisions on
conflict of interest applicable to all members of the legal profession without discrimination.
 Atty. Acosta also requested that Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA be temporarily not
implemented pending a review of its constitutionality and its impact on the integrity of the justice
system, public service, and the safety of public attorneys.
Issues:
1.Whether Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA should be removed.
2.Whether Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA should be temporarily not implemented.
Ruling:
The Court has the exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law, including prescribing standards of
conduct for lawyers, based on its constitutional mandate.
The CPRA, which superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), was promulgated by the
Court in the exercise of its constitutionally vested power.
The CPRA codifies the principles of conflict of interest and provides an extensive set of conflict-of-
interest rules.
Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA specifically addresses conflict of interest in the Public Attorney's
Office (PAO) and ensures access to legal services for marginalized sectors while considering the
avoidance of potential conflict of interest situations.
The conflict of interest of a lawyer in the PAO is imputed only to that lawyer and their direct supervisor,
and it does not disqualify other lawyers from representing the affected client, as long as there is full
disclosure and written informed consent.
The Court had already passed upon and deliberated on the comments on the proposed CPRA, including
those raised by Atty. Acosta, before approving it.
The Court finds no basis to remove Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA or to temporarily not implement it.
Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta is directed to show cause why she should not be cited in indirect contempt
and disciplined as a member of the Bar for her statements and actions that impede, obstruct, or degrade
the administration of justice.
Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta and all other lawyers of the PAO are instructed to refrain from making
further statements on the subject matter of the case in any forum, and Atty. Acosta is instructed to cease
all efforts to contact any Member of the Court regarding the matter.