View full case

JOAQUIN G. BONIFACIO v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA

FACTS:

Atty. Edgardo O. Era and Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas were the subjects of an administrative complaint for alleged violations of rules and laws in the implementation of a judgment. An Investigating Commissioner initially dismissed the complaint after finding no wrongdoing on the part of the respondents. The Commissioner noted that there was no evidence showing that Atty. Era prepared or signed the pleading in question, and that there was no impediment for Atty. Bragas to sign the pleadings. The Commissioner also found that Atty. Era's presence during an auction and negotiations did not prove that he was practicing law during his suspension. Moreover, the complainant's own pleadings contradicted the imputations of force, threat, and intimidation by the respondents.

However, the findings and conclusions of the Commissioner were later reversed by the IBP Board of Governors. The Board held that Atty. Era engaged in the practice of law during his suspension and imposed a three-year suspension on him. Atty. Bragas was also suspended for one month for her assistance in the unauthorized practice of law. The Board found that Atty. Era's argument that he acted pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was untenable as the SPA did not authorize him to represent his clients during the relevant auction and to accept payment in machinery or property. The Board concluded that Atty. Era violated the Rules of Court.

The Commissioner recommended the imposition of a fine on Atty. Era for his unauthorized appearance in the labor case after his suspension, a recommendation that was later adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

ISSUES:

  1. Did Atty. Era engage in the practice of law during his suspension therefrom that would warrant another disciplinary action against him?

  2. In the affirmative, is Atty. Bragas guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Atty. Era in his illegal practice of law that would likewise warrant this Court's exercise of its disciplining authority against her?

  3. Whether Atty. Era engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension.

  4. Whether Atty. Bragas assisted Atty. Era in his unauthorized practice of law.

  5. Whether Atty. Edgardo O. Era is guilty of willfully disobeying the court's lawful order.

  6. Whether Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. The Court sustained the findings and recommendations of the Board of Governors. Atty. Era's acts constituted "practice of law." The Court cited previous cases that define the practice of law and held that it is not limited to appearing in court but includes the preparation of pleadings, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel, and fixing and collecting fees for legal services. The Court found that Atty. Era engaged in the practice of law despite his suspension and concluded that Atty. Bragas is guilty of assisting him in his illegal practice of law.

  2. Yes, Atty. Era engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension. His acts of appearing on behalf of his clients in the public auction, tendering a bid, securing the certificate of sale, negotiating with the corporation's officers, and initiating the pull out of the properties all required the application of legal knowledge and skill. Despite being suspended from the practice of law, Atty. Era's actions displayed a determination of the legal effects and consequences of each action, which is characteristic of the legal profession.

  3. Yes, Atty. Bragas assisted Atty. Era in his unauthorized practice of law. Although she had knowledge of Atty. Era's suspension, Atty. Bragas still participated in his unauthorized practice. By doing so, she violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.

  4. Atty. Edgardo O. Era is found guilty of willfully disobeying the court's lawful order and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.

  5. Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas is found guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The practice of law encompasses services requiring the knowledge and application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with their consent.

  • The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court but also includes advising clients on their rights under the law and performing acts either in court or outside of court to obtain or defend their rights.

  • The practice of law includes the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and conveying.

  • The dimensions of the practice of law include advocacy, counseling, and public service.

  • The term "practice of law" implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of services.

  • Engaging in the practice of law involves performing acts that require the use of legal knowledge or skill.

  • It is a lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law.

  • Law practice must be limited only to individuals found duly qualified in education and character.

  • Members of the Bar are expected to uphold and maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.

  • Disobeying a court's lawful order can result in suspension from the practice of law.

  • Associates in a law firm cannot be used to circumvent a suspension order.