Bonifacio V.

Era o “Atty Era was engaged in unauthorized practice of law during

his suspension”
Facts:

 In 2003, an illegal dismissal case was lodged against Bonifacio and his
company, Solid Engine Rebuilders Group and the complainants therein
(Abucejo Group) were represented by Atty. Era and the Associates Law
Office
 On 2004, the labor arbiter found Bonifacio and the corporation liable for
illegal dismissal. They brought this up to the SC but the SC affirmed the
decision of the NLRC
 Afterwards, in 2013 an administrative case was filed against Atty Era for
representing conflicting interest and the court found him guilty and
suspended him from practice for 2 years
 On November 2013, the scheduled public auction over Bonifacio’s
corporation properties was conducted. Atty. Era actively participated
therein. He tendered a bid for his clients and he was given a certificate of sale.
 Armed with such documents, Atty Era led the pulling out of the subject
properties but eventually stopped with talking to Bonifacio’s children and he
summoned them to his law office.
 Unable to settle, the respondents came back to the business establishment
and they forced open the establishment to pull out the auctioned
properties.
 Bonifacio filed a criminal complaint against him for malicious mischief,
robbery and trespassing. As for Atty. Bragas – grave coercion.
 Atty Era’s acts constituted willful disobedience of the lawful order of this
court, However, the Investigating Commissioner Voted to dismiss this case
since he argues that anybody, not exclusively lawyers can be present at an
auction sale or negotiation. Thus, there is insufficiency of evidence.
 The IBP Board of Governors: reversed and set aside this ruling and suspended
him for 3 Years
Issues:
W/N Atty. Era engage in the practice of law during his suspension
W/N Is Atty. Bragas guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Atty. Era in
illegal practice of law
Held:
1. The SC affirmed the findings of the Board of Governors. Atty Era’s act
constituted the practice of law, which however was unauthorized. Atty Era is
now suspended for 3 years.
2. Atty Bragas is likewise guilty of assisting Atty. Era in his unauthorized
practice of law and must likewise be disciplined.
There is no question that he knew of tAtty. Era’s suspension and unauthorized
practice. He specifically violated Canon 9 of the CPR

 Atty Era and Bragas argue that Bonifacio was not there at that time hence his A Lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
allegations are without basis. Atty. Era further argued that he did not violate practice of law
the court’s order of suspension from the practice of law and merely acted
Atty. Bragas ought to know that Atty. Era’s acts could only be performed by
with the Special Power of Attorney
a member of the bar who is in good standing, which Atty. Era was not at that
time. Hence he should not have participated to such transgression.
 “The practice of Law is not limited to conduct of cases in court” (plus other
several definitions) Atty Era conducted these things: ATTY BRAGAS IS SUSPENDED FOR 1 MONTH.
o Appeared on behalf of his clients in the public auction
o Tendered bid in auction for his clients
o Secured a certificate of sale
o Insisted that his clients are now the new owners of the subject
properties
o Initiated the pull out of the properties
o Negotiated with Bonifacio’s children
 While it is true that being present in an auction sale may not be exclusive for
lawyers however, “Such Trained legal mind is what his clients were
relying upon to redress their claims”