Bonifacio V Bragas A.C. No. 11754

9/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 841
A.C. No. 11754. October 3, 2017.*
JOAQUIN G. BONIFACIO, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O.

ERA and ATTY. DIANE KAREN B. BRAGAS, respondents.
Attorneys; Practice of Law; Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be

shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as an
attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating
oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.—In Atty.
Edita Noe-Lacsamana v. Atty. Yolando F. Busmente, 661 SCRA 1 (2011),
We succinctly ruled that 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. Holding one’s self out
as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as
identifying oneself as an attorney, appearing in court in representation of a
client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general
practice of law. In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Era committed the
following acts: (1) appeared on behalf of his winning clients in the public
auction of the condemned properties; (2) tendered bid in the auction for his
clients; (3) secured the certificate of sale and presented the said document to
the corporation’s officers and employees present in the premises at that
time; (4) insisted that his clients are now the new owners of the subject
properties, hence, should be allowed entry in the premises; (5) initiated the
pullout of the properties; and (6) negotiated with Bonifacio’s children in his
law office as regards the payment of the judgment award with interest
instead of pulling out the properties.
Same; Legal Ethics; Willful Disobedience; Atty. Era’s acts constitute
willful disobedience of the lawful order of the Supreme Court (SC), which
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a sufficient cause for
suspension or disbarment.—As mentioned, Atty. Era was suspended from
the practice of law for a period of two years in this Court’s Decision dated
July 16, 2013. He performed the above
* EN BANC.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d54c349feee6617c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
488
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bonifacio vs. Era
cited acts on the same year, specifically November to December 2013.

Indubitably, Atty. Era was engaged in an unauthorized law practice. Atty.
Era’s acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful order of this Court,
which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a sufficient cause
for suspension or disbarment. Further, Atty. Era’s intentional maneuver to
circumvent the suspension order not only reflects his insubordination to
authority but also his disrespect to this Court’s lawful order which warrants
reproach. Members of the bar, above anyone else, are called upon to obey
court orders and processes. Graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer
than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to
their processes.
Same; Same; It is a lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to
assist in, the unauthorized practice of law.—Indeed, it is a lawyer’s duty to
prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law.
Such duty is founded upon public interest and policy, which requires that
law practice be limited only to individuals found duly qualified in education
and character. As correctly observed by the Board, Atty. Bragas ought to
know that Atty. Era’s acts constitutive of law practice could be performed
only by a member of the Bar in good standing, which Atty. Era was not at
that time. Hence, she should have not participated to such transgression.
Being an associate in Atty. Era’s law firm cannot be used to circumvent the
suspension order. The factual circumstances of the case clearly shows that
Atty. Bragas did not act to replace Atty. Era as counsel for his and/or the law
firm’s clients during the latter’s suspension. Atty. Bragas merely assisted
Atty. Era, who admittedly was the one actively performing all acts
pertaining to the labor case he was handling.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation of the

Code of Professional Responsibility.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
489
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 489

Bonifacio vs. Era
TIJAM, J.:
This administrative case arose from a verified Affidavit-

Complaint1 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
by complainant Joaquin G. Bonifacio (Bonifacio) against
respondents Atty. Edgardo O. Era (Atty. Era) and Atty. Diane Karen
B. Bragas (Atty. Bragas) for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
The Facts
Sometime in 2003, an illegal dismissal case was lodged against

Bonifacio and his company, Solid Engine Rebuilders Corporation
entitled Gil Abucejo, Edgar Besmano, Efren Sager, Darlito Sosa,
Gerardo G. Talosa, and Salvador Villanueva v. Solid Engine
Rebuilders Corporation and/or Joaquin G. Bonifacio, docketed as
NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-05953-03. Complainants therein
(Abucejo Group) were represented by Era and Associates Law
Office through Atty. Era.2
On June 15, 2004, the Labor Arbiter found Bonifacio and the
corporation liable for illegal dismissal and, consequently, ordered
them to pay Abucejo Group their separation pay, full backwages and
prorated 13th month pay. More specifically, Bonifacio and his
corporation were ordered to pay a partially computed amount of
P674,128 for the separation pay and full backwages, and P16,050.65
for the 13th month pay.3 Bonifacio and the corporation brought their
case up to the Supreme Court but they suffered the same fate as their
appeals and motions were decided against them.4
Thus, on January 26, 2006, a Writ of Execution5 was issued to
implement the June 15, 2004 Decision. A Notice of Gar-
1 Rollo, pp. 2-13.

2 Id., at p. 424.
3 Id., at p. 128.
4 Id., at pp. 107-109.
5 Id., at pp. 148-150.
490

Bonifacio vs. Era
nishment dated February 6, 2006 was likewise issued.6 Two alias

writs dated May 8, 20087 and April 16, 20138 were later on issued,
directing the sheriff to collect the sum of P4,012,166.43,

representing the judgment award plus interest and attorney’s fees.
Meanwhile, an administrative complaint was filed against Atty.
Era for representing conflicting interests entitled Ferdinand A.
Samson v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, docketed as A.C. No. 6664.9 In a
July 16, 2013 Decision, this Court found Atty. Era guilty of the
charge and imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for two years, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty.

EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon
17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from
the practice of law for two years effective upon his receipt of this decision,
with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
Let copies of this decision be included in the personal record of Atty.
EDGARDO O. ERA and entered in [sic] his file in the Office of the Bar
Confidant.
Let copies of this decision be disseminated to all lower courts by the
Office of the Court Administrator, as well as to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for its guidance.
SO ORDERED.10
On November 28, 2013, the scheduled public auction over

Bonifacio’s and/or the corporation’s properties in the business
6 Id., at p. 109.
7 Id., at pp. 151-156.
8 Id., at pp. 157-159.
9 Samson v. Era, 714 Phil. 101; 701 SCRA 241 (2013).
10 Id., at p. 113; pp. 253-254.
491
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 491

Bonifacio vs. Era
establishment was conducted to implement the alias writ. Atty. Era

actively participated therein. He attended the public auction and
tendered a bid for his clients who were declared the highest bidders.
On the same day, a certificate of sale was issued, which Atty. Era
presented to the corporation’s officers and employees who were
there at that time. Armed with such documents, Atty. Era led the
pulling out of the subject properties but eventually stopped to

negotiate with Bonifacio’s children for the payment of the judgment
award instead of pulling out the auctioned properties. Atty. Era
summoned Bonifacio’s children to continue with the negotiation in
his law office. On behalf of his clients, their counteroffer for the
satisfaction of the judgment award went from P6 Million to P9
Million.11
As the parties were not able to settle, on December 3, 2013,
Attys. Era and Bragas went back to Bonifacio’s business
establishment together with their clients and several men, and forced
open the establishment to pull out the auctioned properties. This was
evidenced by the videos presented by Bonifacio in the instant
administrative complaint.12
This prompted Bonifacio to file a criminal complaint for
malicious mischief, robbery, and trespassing with the Office of the
City Prosecutor, Pasay City. In its Resolution13 dated March 31,
2014, the Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to
indict Attys. Era and Bragas for grave coercion.14
Meanwhile, Atty. Era’s name remains to appear in pleadings filed
before the NLRC and this Court sometime in February and April
2014 with regard to the subject labor case.15
On August 8, 2014, Bonifacio filed the instant administrative
complaint.16
11 Rollo, p. 441.
12 Id., at pp. 5-9.
13 Id., at pp. 69-74.
14 Id., at p. 438.
15 Id., at pp. 30 and 62.
492

Bonifacio vs. Era
In their Answer,17 Attys. Era and Bragas alleged that Bonifacio

has no personal knowledge as to what transpired on November 28,
2013 and December 3, 2013 as the latter was not present therein at
that time.18 Hence, his allegations of force, threat, and intimidation
in the execution of the judgment is without basis.19 In his defense,
Atty. Era further argued that he did not violate the Court’s order of
suspension from the practice of law as he merely acted as his clients’
attorney-in-fact pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney20 (SPA)
dated May 3, 2006. It is Atty. Era’s theory that with such SPA, he
was not engaged in the practice of law in representing his clients in
the implementation of the alias writ. He added that he never signed
any document or pleading on behalf of his clients during his
suspension. For Atty. Bragas, being an associate of Era and
Associates Law Firm, she was merely representing the Abucejo
Group as said law firm’s clients. Anent the P6 Million to P9 Million
counteroffer that they made, Attys. Era and Bragas explained that
the parties were still on negotiation, hence, both parties are free to
have their own computations, which they could respectively accept
or otherwise.21
In his Report and Recommendation22 dated March 17, 2015,
Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera recommended
the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for
insufficiency of evidence.
The Investigating Commissioner found nothing wrong with the
indication of a suspended lawyer’s name in a pleading considering
that the same was not signed by the latter. There was also no proof
that a pleading was prepared by Atty. Era.
16 Id., at pp. 2-13.

17 Id., at pp. 106-124.
18 Id., at p. 115.
19 Id., at p. 116.
20 Id., at p. 185.
21 Id., at p. 117.
22 Id., at pp. 422-434.
493
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 493

Bonifacio vs. Era
On the other hand, there was no impediment against Atty. Bragas to

sign the pleadings. There was also no proof that in doing so, Atty.
Bragas was assisting suspended Atty. Era in filing a pleading.
Neither the presence of Atty. Era during the public auction and the
negotiations was an implication or proof that Atty. Era was engaging
in the practice of law during his suspension. According to the
Investigating Commissioner, anybody, not exclusively lawyers, can
be present at an auction sale or negotiation.
As to whether Attys. Era and Bragas violated any rules/laws in
the implementation of the judgment by using force, threat, and
intimidation, the Investigating Commissioner noted that complainant

contradicted such imputations by filing the following pleadings, to
wit: (1) a Motion to Close and Terminate Case23 dated December 18,
2013, acknowledging the full satisfaction of the judgment award and
even prayed for Attys. Era and Bragas’ clients to take possession of
the remaining machines in his business establishment; (2) a
Manifestation24 dated March 12, 2014, wherein complainant stated
that he has surrendered the vehicles listed in the certificate of sale;
(3) an Omnibus Motion with Entry of Appearance (Motion to
Withdraw and Motion to Reiterate Motion to Close and Terminate
Case) and release of TRO Bond25 dated February 4, 2014; (4) A
Motion for Consignation with Motion to Lift Levy26 dated October
29, 2014; and (5) a Motion to Withdraw Complaint27 dated
December 10, 2013 on the criminal case for Malicious Mischief,
Robbery, and Trespassing against Attys. Era and Bragas. In fine, the
Investigating Commissioner ratiocinated that in acknowledging the
satisfaction of the judgment in the labor case and withdrawing the
criminal case that he filed against Attys. Era and Bragas with regard
to the
23 Id., at pp. 239-242.

24 Id., at pp. 244-246.
25 Id., at pp. 258-261.
26 Id., at pp. 273-275.
27 Id., at p. 351.
494

Bonifacio vs. Era
implementation of the said judgment, complainant contradicted and

demolished his own allegation that the satisfaction of the judgment
was improperly and unlawfully implemented.28
Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the
administrative charges against Attys. Era and Bragas be dismissed
for insufficiency of evidence.29
The IBP Board of Governors (Board), in its Resolution No. XXI-
2015-27030 dated April 18, 2015 reversed and set aside the
Investigating Commissioner’s findings and conclusions:
RESOLUTION No. XXI-2015-270

CBD Case No. 14-4300
Joaquin G. Bonifacio v.
Atty. Edgardo O. Era and
Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas
RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the
above entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex “A,” and
considering Atty. Era’s continued engagement in the practice of law during
the period of his suspension by admittedly participating in the negotiation
for the payment of money judgment including pegging of interest he acted as
his clients advocate instead as an agent in view of the presence also of his
client in the negotiation, for holding office and admittedly summoned the
complainant’s children to determine the money judgment. Hence, Atty.
Edgardo O. Era is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three
(3) years.
RESOLVED FURTHER, for her assistance in the unauthorized practice
of law of Atty. Edgardo O. Era, Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month.
28 Id., at pp. 431-433.

29 Id., at pp. 433-434.
30 Id., at pp. 419-420.
495
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 495

Bonifacio vs. Era
In its Extended Resolution31 dated October 17, 2016, the IBP

Board of Governors found Atty. Era’s argument that he merely acted
pursuant to an SPA given to him untenable. The Board explained
that the invoked SPA gave Atty. Era the authority to appear and
represent the Abucejo Group only on the May 4, 2006 auction and
did not include the November 28, 2013 auction. Also, while he was
authorized to receive payment on behalf of his clients, the SPA
specifically stated that said payments should be made in the form of
checks and not machinery or property. Thus, Atty. Era had no
authority under the SPA to represent his clients during the November
28, 2013 auction and to pull out and receive the corporation’s
machines as payment of the judgment award. At any rate, according
to the Board, Atty. Era’s clients relied on his legal knowledge in
having the judgment award satisfied. Clearly, Atty. Era violated
Section 28,32 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.33
Corollary to this, the Board also found Atty. Bragas liable for
allowing and assisting Atty. Era to engage in an unauthorized
practice of law. The Board concluded that Atty. Bragas ought to
know that Atty. Era’s acts during the satisfaction of the alias writ
could be performed only by a member of the bar in good standing.34
Pursuant to Section 12(b),35 Rule 139(B) of the Rules, the
records of the instant case were transmitted to this Court.
31 Id., at pp. 435-444.

32 Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First
Instance.—The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an
attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section, and
after such suspension, such attorney shall not practice his profession until further
action of the Supreme Court in the premises.
33 Rollo, pp. 441-442.
34 Id., at pp. 442-443.
35 Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.—x x x x
496

Bonifacio vs. Era
No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by

either party as of June 29, 2017.
Necessarily, the Court will now proceed to give its final action on
the instant administrative case, the issues being: (1) Did Atty. Era
engage in the practice of law during his suspension therefrom that
would warrant another disciplinary action against him?; and (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?
We sustain the findings and recommendations of the Board of
Governors.
Atty. Era’s acts constituted

‘‘practice of law.”
On this matter, Our pronouncement in the landmark case of

Renato L. Cayetano v. Christian Monsod, et al.36 is on point. Thus,
We quote herein the relevant portions of the said Decision, viz.:
Black defines “practice of law” as:

“The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the
application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest
of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court,
or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces
the preparation of pleadings, and
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines
that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with
the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
final action.
36 278 Phil. 235; 201 SCRA 210 (1991).
497
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 497

Bonifacio vs. Era
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,

conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and
the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to
clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the
law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an
office where he is held out to be an attorney, using a letterhead
describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters,
negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and
fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate.”
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land
Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650) A
person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
“x x x for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising
person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the
law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in
proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner,
referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative
capacity performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or
defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated,
one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of
advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged
performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that
purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.” (State ex. rel. Mckittrick

v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852)
498

Bonifacio vs. Era
This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105

Phil. 173, 176-177), stated:
“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management
of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges
and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the
law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services
contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure
of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and
insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment,
and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute
law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments,
where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.” (5 Am. Jur. pp. 262,
263)
xxxx
The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation
briefing for new lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice
of law in even broader terms as advocacy, counselling and public service.
“One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of
employment in the profession. If what he does exacts knowledge of
the law and is of a kind usual for attorneys engaging in the active
practice of their profession, and he follows some one or more lines of
employment such as this, he is a practicing attorney at law within the
meaning of the statute.” (Barr v. Cardell, 155 NW 312)
499
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 499

Bonifacio vs. Era
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires

the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is
to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.” (111 ALR
23)37 (Emphasis supplied)
In Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana v. Atty. Yolando F. Busmente,38 We

succinctly ruled that 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. Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts
indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as an attorney,
appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating
oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.39
In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Era committed the
following acts: (1) appeared on behalf of his winning clients in the
public auction of the condemned properties; (2) tendered bid in the
auction for his clients; (3) secured the certificate of sale and
presented the said document to the corporation’s officers and
employees present in the premises at that time; (4) insisted that his
clients are now the new owners of the subject properties, hence,
should be allowed entry in the premises; (5) initiated the pullout of
the properties; and (6) negotiated with Bonifacio’s children in his
law office as regards the payment of the judgment award with
interest instead of pulling out the properties.40
37 Id., at pp. 241-243; pp. 212-214.

38 677 Phil. 1; 661 SCRA 1 (2011).
39 Id., at p. 5; pp. 4-5.
40 Rollo, pp. 437-438.
500

Bonifacio vs. Era
It is true that being present in an auction sale and negotiating

matters relating to the same may not be exclusively for lawyers, as
opined by the Investigating Commissioner. However, in this case, as
aptly put by the Board in its Resolution, Atty. Era’s acts clearly
involved the determination by a trained legal mind of the legal

effects and consequences of each course of action in the satisfaction
of the judgment award.41 Precisely, this is why his clients chose
Atty. Era to represent them in the public auction and in any
negotiation/settlement with the corporation arising from the labor
case as stated in the SPA being invoked by Atty. Era.42 Such trained
legal mind is what his clients were relying upon in seeking redress
for their claims. This is evident from the fact that they agreed not to
enter into any amicable settlement without the prior written consent
of Atty. Era, the latter being their lawyer.43 It could readily be seen
that the said SPA was executed by reason of Atty. Era being their
legal counsel. Thus, We are one with the Board’s submission that the
said SPA cannot be invoked to support Atty. Era’s claim that he was
not engaged in the practice of law in performing the acts above cited
as such SPA cunningly undermines the suspension ordered by this
Court against Atty. Era, which We cannot countenance.
Atty. Era was engaged in

an unauthorized practice of
law during his suspension.
As mentioned, Atty. Era was suspended from the practice of law

for a period of two years in this Court’s Decision dated July 16,
2013. He performed the above cited acts on the same year,
specifically November to December 2013. Indubitably, Atty. Era
was engaged in an unauthorized law practice.
41 Id., at p. 441.
42 Id., at p. 185.
43 Id.
501
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 501

Bonifacio vs. Era
Atty. Era’s acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful order

of this Court, which under Section 27,44 Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court is a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Further,
Atty. Era’s intentional maneuver to circumvent the suspension order
not only reflects his insubordination to authority but also his
disrespect to this Court’s lawful order which warrants reproach.
Members of the bar, above anyone else, are called upon to obey
45
court orders and processes. Graver responsibility is imposed upon
a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to
show respect to their processes.46
This case is not novel. We had previously disciplined erring
lawyers who continue in their practice despite being suspended by
the Court. In Rodrigo A. Molina v. Atty. Ceferino R. Magat,47 this
Court suspended Atty. Magat from the practice of law for practicing
his profession despite this Court’s previous order of suspension.
Likewise in another case, We suspended a lawyer for continuing in
her practice despite the clear language of this Court’s suspension
order.48
In view of the foregoing, We agree with the Board of Governors’
Resolution, finding Atty. Era guilty of willfully dis-
44 Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds

therefor.—A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority to do so. x x x
45 Sebastian v. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211, 224; 532 SCRA 435, 449 (2007).
46 Id.
47 687 Phil. 1; 672 SCRA 1 (2012).
48 Ibana-Andrade v. Paita-Moya, A.C. No. 8313, July 14, 2015, 762 SCRA 571.
502

Bonifacio vs. Era
obeying the lawful order of this Court warranting the exercise of

Our disciplining authority. We also adopt the Board’s
recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed upon Atty. Era, i.e.,
three years suspension from the practice of law, taking into account
that this is his second infraction.
Atty. Bragas is guilty of assist-

ing Atty. Era in his unauthor-
ized practice of law and, thus,
must likewise be reproved.
There is no question that Atty. Bragas has knowledge of Atty.

Era’s suspension from the practice of law and yet, she allowed
herself to participate in Atty. Era’s unauthorized practice. Clearly,
Atty. Bragas violated the CPR, specifically:
CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the

unauthorized practice of law.
Indeed, it is a lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to

assist in, the unauthorized practice of law. Such duty is founded
upon public interest and policy, which requires that law practice be
limited only to individuals found duly qualified in education and
character.49
As correctly observed by the Board, Atty. Bragas ought to know
that Atty. Era’s acts constitutive of law practice could be performed
only by a member of the Bar in good standing, which Atty. Era was
not at that time. Hence, she should have not participated to such
transgression.
Being an associate in Atty. Era’s law firm cannot be used to
circumvent the suspension order. The factual circumstances of the
case clearly shows that Atty. Bragas did not act to replace Atty. Era
as counsel for his and/or the law firm’s clients
49 Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378, 389; 434 SCRA 288, 296 (2004).
503
VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 503

Bonifacio vs. Era
during the latter’s suspension. Atty. Bragas merely assisted Atty.

Era, who admittedly was the one actively performing all acts
pertaining to the labor case he was handling.
Considering the foregoing, We also adopt the Board’s
recommendation as regards Atty. Bragas’ guilt in the violation of the
CPR.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Edgardo O. Era is
found GUILTY of willfully disobeying this Court’s lawful order and
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) years, while Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas is likewise found
GUILTY of violating CANON 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one (1) month, effective immediately from receipt of this
Decision. Also, both Attys. Era and Bragas are WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense, or a commission of another
offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the personal records of
respondents as members of the Bar, and copies furnished the Office
of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza,
Caguioa, Martires, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Atty. Edgardo O. Era suspended from practice of law for three

(3) years for willfully disobeying lawful order of Supreme Court,
while Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas suspended from practice of law
for one (1) month for violating Canon 9 of Code of Professional
Responsibility. Both Attys. Era and Bragas are warned against
repetition of similar offense.
504

Bonifacio vs. Era
Notes.—Respondent violated Canon 9 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility (CPR) which requires lawyers not to
directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
(Angeles, Jr. vs. Bagay, 743 SCRA 464 [2014])
It has been said that [t]he practice of law is a privilege bestowed
on lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and
morality. (San Pedro vs. Mendoza, 744 SCRA 203 [2014])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Bonifacio V Bragas A.C. No. 11754

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bonifacio V Bragas A.C. No. 11754

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bonifacio V Bragas A.C. No. 11754

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 841

A.C. No. 11754. October 3, 2017.*

JOAQUIN G. BONIFACIO, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O.

Attorneys; Practice of Law; Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

cited acts on the same year, specifically November to December 2013.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation of the

VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 489

This administrative case arose from a verified Affidavit-

Sometime in 2003, an illegal dismissal case was lodged against

1 Rollo, pp. 2-13.

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

nishment dated February 6, 2006 was likewise issued.6 Two alias

directing the sheriff to collect the sum of P4,012,166.43,

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty.

On November 28, 2013, the scheduled public auction over

VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 491

establishment was conducted to implement the alias writ. Atty. Era

pulling out of the subject properties but eventually stopped to

492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In their Answer,17 Attys. Era and Bragas alleged that Bonifacio

16 Id., at pp. 2-13.

VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 493

On the other hand, there was no impediment against Atty. Bragas to

intimidation, the Investigating Commissioner noted that complainant

23 Id., at pp. 239-242.

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

implementation of the said judgment, complainant contradicted and

RESOLUTION No. XXI-2015-270

28 Id., at pp. 431-433.

VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 495

In its Extended Resolution31 dated October 17, 2016, the IBP

31 Id., at pp. 435-444.

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by

Atty. Era’s acts constituted

On this matter, Our pronouncement in the landmark case of

Black defines “practice of law” as:

VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 497

other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,

purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.” (State ex. rel. Mckittrick

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105

VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 499

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires

In Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana v. Atty. Yolando F. Busmente,38 We

37 Id., at pp. 241-243; pp. 212-214.

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

It is true that being present in an auction sale and negotiating

involved the determination by a trained legal mind of the legal

Atty. Era was engaged in

As mentioned, Atty. Era was suspended from the practice of law

VOL. 841, OCTOBER 3, 2017 501

Atty. Era’s acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful order

44 Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

obeying the lawful order of this Court warranting the exercise of

Atty. Bragas is guilty of assist-

There is no question that Atty. Bragas has knowledge of Atty.