**Bonifacio vs. Era and Bragas: Unauthorized Practice of Law**
### 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.
### Issues:
1. Whether Atty. Era engaged in the practice of law during his suspension, warranting disciplinary action.
2. Whether Atty. Bragas is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Atty. Era in his unauthorized practice of law.
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Era engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and found both Atty. Era and Atty. Bragas guilty. 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 and received a one-month suspension.
### Doctrine:
The case reaffirmed the definition of the practice of law beyond court appearances, encompassing activities that require legal expertise and representation. It also underscored the prohibition against, and consequences of, unauthorized practice of law, especially during periods of suspension as well as the rule against assisting in such practices.
### Class Notes:
– Unauthorized Practice of Law: Engaging in law-related activities during a period of suspension violates the CPR and Rules of Court, leading to additional sanctions.
– Duty of Lawyers: Lawyers must refrain from and discourage unauthorized practice of law, adhering to standards of professional conduct even (or especially) when not actively practicing.
– Suspension/Disbarment: The pivotal role of adherence to lawful orders of the court and the repercussions of failing to do so, including additional disciplinary actions.
### Historical Background:
This case delves into the professional responsibility and ethical obligations of legal practitioners, particularly focusing on the ramifications of disregarding a suspension order from the practice of law. It illustrates the judiciary’s commitment to uphold the integrity and discipline within the legal profession, emphasizing the duty of lawyers to respect and comply with court orders, further underlining the legal profession’s regulatory framework designed to protect public interest against malpractice and unethical conduct.
Leave a Reply