Bonifacio V.

Era
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 and Bragas argue that Bonifacio was not there at that time hence his allegations are
without basis. Atty. Era further argued that he did not violate the court’s order of suspension
from the practice of law and merely acted with the Special Power of Attorney

“The practice of Law is not limited to conduct of cases in court” (plus other several definitions)
Atty Era conducted these things:
Appeared on behalf of his clients in the public auction
Tendered bid in auction for his clients
Secured a certificate of sale
Insisted that his clients are now the new owners of the subject properties
Initiated the pull out of the properties
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”
“Atty Era was engaged in unauthorized practice of law during his suspension”

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:
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.
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
A Lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law
Atty. Bragas ought to know that Atty. Era’s acts could only be performed by 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.
ATTY BRAGAS IS SUSPENDED FOR 1 MONTH.
SANCHEZ vs. ATTY. AGUILOS

A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 |Bersamin, J.,

This administrative case relates to the performance of duty of an attorney towards his client in
which the former is found and declared to be lacking in knowledge and skill sufficient for the
engagement. Does quantum meruit attach when an attorney fails to accomplish tasks which he
is naturally expected to perform during his professional engagement?

FACTS

Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos (respondent)
with misconduct for the latter's refusal to return the amount of P70,000.00 she had paid for his
professional services despite his not having performed the contemplated professional services.
She avers that in March 2005, she sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in
the annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband.
She subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund of the amounts already
paid, but he refused to do the same as he had already started working on the case; that she had
sent him a letter, through Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand the return of her payment less
whatever amount corresponded to the legal services he had already performed
That the respondent did not heed her demand letter despite his not having rendered any
appreciable legal services to her;5 and that his constant refusal to return the amounts prompted
her to bring an administrative complaint against him6 in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) on March 20, 2007.

IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. declared that the respondent's
insistence that he could have brought a petition for legal separation based on the psychological
incapacity of the complainant's husband was sanctionable because he himself was apparently
not conversant with the grounds for legal separation; that because he rendered some legal
services to the complainant, he was entitled to receive only P40,000.00 out of the P70,000.00
paid to him as acceptance fee, the P40,000.00 being the value of the services rendered under
the principle of quantum meruit; and that, accordingly, he should be made to return to her the
amount of P30,000.00.

IBP also recommended that Atty. Aguilos be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
six months.
ISSUE(S)

(a) Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct; and (b)
Whether or not he should be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid.

RULING

Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to return the entire amount
received from the client

Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the
complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between the
grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have
been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either
causes of action. His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for legal
separation should be disbelieved. The case unquestionably contemplated by the parties and for
which his services was engaged, was no other than an action for annulment of the complainant's
marriage with her husband with the intention of marrying her British fiancee. They did not
contemplate legal separation at all, for legal separation would still render her incapacitated
to re-marry. That the respondent was insisting in his answer that he had prepared a petition
for legal separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney's fees if she desired to have the
action for annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to serve as a hallow
afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered.

As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as an attorney. He
thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal serviee which he knows or should know that he
is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client,
he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. (Emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated September 20,

2008 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, with the MODIFICATION that
Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is hereby FINED P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his professional
competence to the client, and REPRIMANDS him for his use of offensive and improper language
towards his fellow attorney, with the stern warning that a repetition of the offense shall be
severely punished.

The Court ORDERS Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to RETURN to the complainant within thirty (30) days
from notice the sum of P70,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date
of this decision until full payment.
The Alzheimer’s Society, which obtained the figures, said they meant that more than half
of everyone in England with dementia had been admitted to hospital at least once – and
sometimes many times – during 2017/18.

“This is the stark reality of many people with dementia left to fall through the cracks in our
broken social care system,” said Jeremy Hughes, the chief executive.

Falls, dehydration and infections are thought to be the commonest reasons for those with the
condition ending up in hospital overnight. Hughes blamed the spike in admissions on social care
– support for people at home or in care homes – being “scarce, inadequate and costly”.

The 100,000 extra admissions are costing the NHS £280m a year, the Alzheimer’s Society has
calculated.

The five: ways to slow the onset of Alzheimer’s

Read more

Figures it collated from the NHS’s hospital episodes statistics data collection system also
showed that the number of people with dementia who spend at least a month in hospital topped
40,000 in 2017/18, at a cost of £165m.

“People with dementia are all too often being dumped in hospital and left there for long stays.
Many are only admitted because there’s no social care support to keep them safe at home.
They are commonly spending twice as long in hospital as needed, confused and scared,” added
Hughes.

Last modified: 12:11 PM