Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11


A.C. No. 11616 [Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141], August 23, 2017

LITO V. BUENVIAJE, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELCHOR G. MAGDAMO, Respondent.



Before us is an Administrative Complaint dated December 28, 2007 filed by Lito Buenviaje1 (Buenviaje)
against respondent Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo (Atty. Magdamo), docketed as A.C. No. 11616 for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

In the instant Complaint dated December 28, 2007, Buenviaje alleged that he was married to the late Fe
Gonzalo-Buenviaje as evidenced by NSO issued Marriage Contract Register No. 87-13503-A.2 Fe died on
September 17, 2007.

Meanwhile, Atty. Magdamo was the counsel of Fe's sisters, Lydia and Florenia Gonzalo, who filed a criminal
case for bigamy against Buenviaje. They claimed that Buenviaje was married to a certain Amalia Ventura in
1978, thus, making him guilty of bigamy.

In an attempt to protect the rights and interests of his clients in securing the monies of their sibling,
deceased Fe Gonzalo, Atty. Magdamo sent a Notice of Death of Depositor3 dated October 11, 2007 to the
Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)-Dagupan Branch where Buenviaje and Fe appeared to have a joint
account. The pertinent portion of said Notice reads as follows:

"x x x x

FE SOLIS GONZALO was formerly an Overseas Filipina Worker (OFW) Nurse in Switzerland whose lifetime
savings is now in an account in BPI-Dagupan. She came back to the Philippines to spend the last days of her
life with her family in San Fabian, Pangasinan. Unfortunately, while she was terminally ill and while
residing in Manila so as to be near Saint Luke's Hospital, a clever swindler by the name of LITO
BUENVIAJE made it appear on spurious documents that he is the husband of Fe Gonzalo when in
truth and in fact LITO BUENVIAJE is married to AMALIA VALERA.


Moreover, ever since 24 August 2007, LITO V. BUENVIAJE has been a fugitive from justice as he has
been hiding from the criminal charge in People of the Philippines versus Lito Buenviaje y
Visayana, case number 7H-103365, pending in the City of Manila.


Fe never had a husband or child in her entire life. x x x" (Emphasis ours)
Aggrieved, Buenviaje filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Magdamo for violation of Rule
1.01, Canon 7 , Rule 7.03 and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Buenviaje averred that
in Atty. Magdamo's Notice of Death of Depositor dated October 11, 2007 sent to the BPI-Dagupan Branch,
he untruthfully and maliciously quoted the following statements: (1) "a clever swindler by the name of Lito
Buenviaje made it appear on spurious document that he is the husband of Fe Gonzalo when in truth and in
fact Lito Buenviaje is married to Amalia Valero", (2) "since August 24, 2007, Lito V. Buenviaje has been a
fugitive from justice as he has been hiding from the criminal charge in People of the Philippines versus Lito
Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H-103365 pending in the City of Manila", and (3) "Fe never had a
husband or child in her entire life" to his prejudice.

Buenviaje alleged that he discovered the Notice's existence sometime in December 2007 when he inquired
about the remaining balance of his joint account with Fe. He lamented that he was shocked upon reading
the letter and felt humiliated at the words written against him as the bank manager and the other bank
personnel might have really thought that he was a swindler and a fugitive from justice.4

Buenviaje denied Atty. Magdamo's allegation that Fe was never married as they were in fact married in a
public civil rites in the presence of many relatives of Fe. As to his alleged marriage with a certain Amalia
Valera, Buenviaje admitted that he had extramarital relationship with her and that they had two (2) sons.
When they separated and he subsequently worked overseas, it did not stop him from fulfilling his
responsibilities as a father to his sons. He was then advised to remit money to Amalia but he was told that
he needed a marriage contract to be able to do so, thus, he asked someone to make a marriage contract for
remittance purposes and that he was told that there would be no record of it. Buenviaje claimed that at that
time, he really believed that no valid marriage took place between him and Amalia and that he was single up
to the time he married Fe.

Buenviaje lamented that Atty. Magdamo employed dirty and dishonest means and tactics to ensure that BPI
will prevent him from withdrawing money from the joint account that he has with his late wife. He averred
that in referring to him as a "swindler", Atty. Magdamo succeeded in intimidating BPI-Dagupan into
extrajudicially "freezing" the joint account and in not transacting with him.

Buenviaje also pointed out that Atty. Magdamo, in referring to him as a fugitive from justice, in effect, made
BPI-Dagupan believe that a criminal complaint was already pending against him when in truth and in fact,
the August 24, 2007 complaint for bigamy filed by Lydia and Florenia was still pending before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila at the time that they wrote and served the Notice to BPI-Dagupan.

Buenviaje further added that Atty. Magdamo even made threats to him as evidenced by his text messages
to him, to wit: "Sometime in the morning of 1 October 2007, I sent text messages to Lito's last known
Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) number (+639062097612) requesting him to stop his merciless plunder
and to voluntarily surrender to the rule of law."

Finally, Buenviaje questioned Atty. Magdamo's fitness to continue in the practice of law as he has displayed
lack of ability to distinguish a fugitive from justice and a respondent in a criminal investigation; employed of
dirty and unprofessional tactics of calling him a "swindler"; and by referring to his marriage contract with his
wife as "spurious document". He, thus, prayed that considering Atty. Magdamo's actuations, he should be
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.

On January 9, 2008, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) directed Atty. Magdamo to submit his
answer on the complaint against him.5

In its Report and Recommendation6 dated October 23, 2013, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty.
Magdamo be reprimanded for his unethical actuations.

However, the IBP-Board of Governors, in a Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-717 dated October 10, 2014,
resolved to adopt and approve with modification the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and
instead suspend Atty. Magdamo from the practice of law for three (3) months.7

Aggrieved, Atty. Magdamo moved for reconsideration. However, in Resolution No. XXII-2016-3268 dated
May 28, 2016, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to deny Atty. Magdamo's motion for reconsideration and
affirm the latter's suspension.

We concur with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and
morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against the opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01. — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
In the instant case, Atty. Magdamo's actuations do not measure up to this Canon. The records show that he
referred to Buenviaje as a "swindler". He made this imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that
Buenviaje is committing swindling activities. Even if he was suspicious of Buenviaje, he should have
refrained from making such malicious reference or name-calling for he should know as a lawyer that the
mere filing of a complaint against a person does not guarantee a finding of guilt, and that an accused is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. Here, other than the criminal complaint for bigamy which Fe's
siblings filed before the prosecutor's office, there were no other cases decided against Buenviaje.

Atty. Magdamo's malicious imputation against Buenviaje is further aggravated by the fact that said
imputation was made in a forum which is not a party to the legal dispute between Fe's siblings and
Buenviaje. He could have just informed BPI-Dagupan of the death of its client and that there is a pending
litigation regarding their client's estate, and he did not have to resort to name-calling and make unnecessary
commentaries in order to support his cause. Undoubtedly, his malicious imputation against Buenviaje is
unfair as the latter was unnecessarily exposed to humiliation and shame even as there was no actual case
yet to be filed in the courts.

Moreover, Atty. Magdamo is likewise out of line when he made inference to the marriage documents of
Buenviaje and Fe as "spurious" as well as his conclusion that "Fe never had a husband or child in her entire
life". He should know better that without the courts' pronouncement to this effect, he is in no position to
draw conclusions and pass judgment as to the existence, and validity or nullity of the marriage of Buenviaje
and Fe. That is not his job to do. While his statements in the Notice given to BPI-Dagupan might be
prompted by a good cause, it were nevertheless careless, premature and without basis. At the very least,
Atty. Magdamo's actuations are blatant violation of Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or
the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
(Emphasis ours)
Equally incredulous is Atty. Magdamo's statement in the Notice that "Lito V. Buenviaje has been a fugitive
from justice as he has been hiding from the criminal charge in People vs. Lito Buenviaje y Visayana, case
number 7H-103365, pending in the City of Manila". Upon review, it appears that case number 7H-103365 is
the same bigamy case which Fe's siblings filed against Buenviaje before the Prosecutor's Office of Manila. At
the time Atty. Magdamo made the subjects statement in the Notice to BPI-Dagupan, he knew that there was
no final resolution yet from the prosecutor's office, no case has yet to be filed in the courts, there was no
warrant of arrest against Buenviaje, and more importantly, there was no evidence that Buenviaje had any
intent to flee prosecution as he even filed the instant case and participated in the proceedings hereto. A
mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There
must always be sufficient evidence to support the charge.9 As to why Atty. Magdamo made such malicious
statements is beyond this Court's comprehension.

We had an occasion to say that the use of disrespectful, intemperate, manifestly baseless, and malicious
statements by an attorney in his pleadings or motions is a violation of the lawyer's oath and a transgression
of the canons of professional ethics.10 The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language
in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.11 Though a lawyer's language may be
forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum. Atty. Magdamo ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal
profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it.12

In this case, Atty. Magdamo's statements against Buenviaje were not only improper but it also undoubtedly
tended to mislead BPI-Dagupan into thinking that the latter is a swindler and a fugitive as it was made
without hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this
irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.

As this Court emphasized in Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 &
The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the hopes of strengthening their cause in a
motion for inhibition, make grave and unfounded accusations of unethical conduct or even wrongdoing
against other members of the legal profession. It is the duty of members of the Bar to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justness of the cause with which they are charged. (emphasis ours)
Finally, it must be emphasized anew that, in support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to
present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. However, a client's cause does not permit
an attorney to cross the line between liberty and license.14 The lawyer's duty to its clients must never be at
the expense of truth and justice. As explained in Choa v. Chiongson:15
While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of his client's case with the end in view of promoting respect for the law and
legal processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as it appears to him to be just,
and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. He must always remind
himself of the oath he took upon admission to the Bar that he will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; and that he will conduct
[himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to [his] clients. Needless to state, the lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the
expense of truth and the administration of justice, and it must be done within the bounds of reason and
common sense. A lawyers responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a
course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.
Based on the foregoing, We cannot countenance Atty. Magdamo's use of offensive and disrespectful
language in his Notice addressed to BPI-Dagupan. He clearly violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, for his actions erode the public's perception of the legal profession. We, thus,
sustain the findings and recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the October 10, 2014 and May 28, 2016 Resolutions of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 08-2141 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty.
Melchor G. Magdamo from the practice of law for three (3) months effective upon his receipt of this

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Magdamo's personal record as an attorney with the Office of
the Bar Confidant and a copy of the same be served to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.



A.C. No. 11754





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
(Abucejon 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
pro-rated 13th month pay. More specifically, Bonifacio and his corporation were ordered to pay a
partially computed amount of ₱674,128 for the separation pay and full backwages, and ₱16,050.65
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 Garnishment dated February 6, 2006 was likewise issued.6 Two alias writs
dated May 8, 20087 and April 16, 20138were later on issued, directing the sheriff to collect the sum of
₱4,012,166.43, 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 0. 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 m [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.


On November 28, 2013, the scheduled public auction over Bonifacio's and/or the corporation's
properties in the business 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 counter-offer for the satisfaction of the judgment award went from ₱6
Million to ₱9 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

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 Attomey20 (SPA) dated May 3, 2006. It is Atty. Era's theory that with such SP A, 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 Php 6 Million to 9 Million
counter-offer 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. 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 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 vs. 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 continuedengagement 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.

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 SP A given to him untenable. The Board explained
that the invoked SP A 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 SP A 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 SP A 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.

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
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:

"xxx 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. CS. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).

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).


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)

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. Bustamante,38We 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 pull out 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

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 SP A 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

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 court orders and processes.45 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,47this 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 disobeying 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

Atty. Bragas is guilty of assisting Atty. Era in his unauthorized 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 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.