Bonifacio vs. Era and Bragas AC No. 11754, October 3, 2017

Bonifacio vs. Era and Bragas

AC No. 11754, October 3, 2017


FACTS This case originates from an administrative complaint filed by Joaquin G. Bonifacio against Attys. Edgardo O. Era and Diane Karen B. Bragas for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The dispute stemmed from an illegal dismissal case lodged against Bonifacio and his company, Solid Engine Rebuilders Corporation, which was won by the complainants (Abucejo Group) represented by Era and Associates Law Office. Upon losing in the Supreme Court and a Writ of Execution being issued to enforce the judgment, two alias writs were subsequently issued directing collection of the judgment award plus interest and attorney’s fees. In 2013, the Supreme Court found Atty. Era guilty of violating Code of Professional Responsibility rules and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. Despite this suspension, Atty. Era actively participated in executing the alias writ, attended the public auction as the representative of the winning Abucejo Group, and engaged in forceful actions and negotiations concerning the auctioned properties. This led Bonifacio to file a criminal complaint against Attys. Era and Bragas for grave coercion, prompting the filing of the administrative complaint. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines initially recommended dismissing the complaint for lack of evidence but the Board of Governors later reversed this, finding Atty. Era guilty of unauthorized practice of law during suspension and Atty. Bragas guilty of assisting him.  Whether Atty. Era engaged in the practice of law during his suspension, warranting disciplinary action and Whether Atty. Bragas is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Atty. Era in his unauthorized practice of law. 


RULING Yes, because Atty. Era’s overt actions in the execution and negotiation processes during his suspension period were classified under the practice of law, warranting a three-year suspension. Atty. Bragas, by assisting Atty. Era, was found to have breached CPR Canon 9.


Under the Law, Engaging in law-related activities during a period of suspension violates the CPR and Rules of Court, leading to additional sanctions. Lawyers must refrain from and discourage unauthorized practice of law, adhering to standards of professional conduct even (or especially) when not actively practicing. The pivotal role of adherence to lawful orders of the court and the repercussions of failing to do so, including additional disciplinary actions.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147