Ac 11754, Ac 5161, Ac 5580

BONIFACIO v.
ERA and BRAGAS

A.C No. 11754, October 3, 2017
TIJAM, J:
Facts:
Sometime in 2003, an illegal dismissal case was lodged against Bonifacio and his
company, Solid Engine Rebuilders Corporation. Complainants therein, Abucejon
Group, were represented by Era and Associates Law Office through Atty. Era.
Meanwhile, an administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Era for representing
conflicting interests. In a July 16, 2013 decision, the Court found Atty. Era guilty of the
charge and imposed the penalty of suspension 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.
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.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Atty. Era engage in the practice of law during his suspension
therefrom.
(2)Whether or not Atty. Bragas is 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?
RULING:
(1) Yes. The Court sustains the findings and recommendations of the Board of
Governors. Atty. Era's acts constituted ''practice of law".
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."
(2) Yes. 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.
ISIDRA TING-DUMALI V. ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES

A.C. No. 5161, April 14, 2004
Per Curiam
FACTS:
Isidra Ting-Dumali, complainant, is one of the six children of the late spouses Julita
Reynante and Vicente Ting. According to her, respondent Atty. Rolando Torres, being her
brother-in-law, took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and immorally
used his profession when he participated in, consented to, and failed to advice against, the
perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when the two made it
appear that they were the sole heirs of the late Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting.
ISSUE:
WON respondent should be disbarred.
RULING:
Yes. Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring
intolerable dishonor to the legal profession. The Court found respondent Atty. Rolando
Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing
membership in the legal profession.
SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V. ROMANILLOS

A.C. No. 5580, July 31, 2018
Per Curiam
Facts:
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Roberto Romanillos, for representing
conflicting interests and for using the title “Judge” despite having been found guilty of grave
and serious misconduct (in Zarate v Romanillos). Respondent used the title "Judge" in his
office letterhead, correspondences and billboards which was erected in several areas within
the San Jose Subdivision sometime in October 2001.
Issue:
WON Romanillos be disbarred.
Ruling:
The Court agrees with the IBP that respondent’s continued use of the title "Judge"
violated Rules 1.01 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a lawyer
from engaging in deceitful conduct and from using any misleading statement or claim
regarding qualifications or legal services. The quasi-judicial notice he posted in the billboards
referring to himself as a judge is deceiving. It was a clear attempt to mislead the public into
believing that the order was issued in his capacity as a judge when he was dishonorably
stripped of the privilege.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos is DISBARRED and his
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

Ac 11754, Ac 5161, Ac 5580

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Ac 11754, Ac 5161, Ac 5580

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BONIFACIO v.

ERA and BRAGAS

CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized

ISIDRA TING-DUMALI V. ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES

SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V. ROMANILLOS

You might also like