Autonomous PAO can reject cases based on ‘sound discretion’

General

The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed a suit filed by a man against the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) for refusing to take up his case as it has no jurisdiction over the complaint.

The CA’s 17th Division ruled that petitioner Mariano Flores, who sued lawyers Mona Lissa Monje-Viray and Florante Natividad of PAO Urdaneta City, was mistaken in taking the alleged snub to the courts and should have instead appealed the rejection before Malacañang.

In a five-page resolution dated Aug. 17 written by Associate Justice Florencio Mamauag Jr. and recently made available online, the CA also noted that Flores was informed by PAO on March 11, 2021 that he was denied legal assistance “due to his refusal to adhere to the public attorney’s advice and assessment of his case”.

The CA did not mention what case Flores took to PAO.

“In this case, the denial of the PAO legal assistance to the petitioner has already been affirmed and petitioner has no other remedy but to appeal to the Office of the President, where he may seek recourse if he strongly believes that the withdrawal of the PAO in representing his cause is not within the ambit of the PAO operations manual,” the tribunal said.

Under the Revised PAO Operations Manual, a public attorney may withdraw representation on justifiable instances in such situations as when the client is not qualified for PAO services including when the client’s income or resources improve, no longer qualifies for continued assistance or the allegation of indigency is false; when despite proper advise from the PAO, a client cannot be restrained from doing things which a lawyer cannot do; or when the client insists in having control of the trial and strategy in procedure which would tend to result in harm to the interest of the client.

The CA added that PAO as the principal law office of the government in extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases, is an independent and autonomous office.

“As such, the Court will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the PAO in the discharge of its mandate to render free of charge, legal representation, assistance and counseling to indigent persons,” the CA said.

Source: Philippines News Agency

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *