Case Digest (A.C. No. 12880)
Facts:
Reinario B. Bihag et al. v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, A.C. No. 12880, November 23, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainants are members and former members of the Board of Directors of the Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative (LANECO); respondent is Atty. Edgardo O. Era. In 2008 LANECO engaged Atty. Era (through its General Manager, Engr. Resnol Torres) to challenge the legality of the 1993 Provincial Tax Revenue Code of Lanao del Norte that produced real property and franchise tax assessments against LANECO. Atty. Era prepared two board resolutions and an engagement contract to pursue two separate special civil actions: a petition for prohibition (real property tax) and a petition for declaratory relief (franchise tax). The engagement contract set detailed fees: engagement and appearance fees, research and pleading fees, mobilization fund, pre-success fees and a success fee of 10% of the total taxes assessed and collected under the Code; VAT was to be shouldered by LANECO.
After trial-court decisions declaring the 1993 Provincial Tax Code unconstitutional, Atty. Era demanded success fees computed on an assertedly large tax base (he claimed roughly P166 million, yielding over P13 million in fees), while LANECO’s billed assessments were substantially lower (about P31.1 million real property tax and P1.74 million franchise tax). The Board initially approved a discounted success fee and issued post-dated checks, but later passed Board Resolution No. 4 (Jan. 4, 2011) deferring payment pending investigation and NEA requirements. Complainants discovered that one check’s date had been altered (from “May 25, 2011” to “December 30, 2010”), and later learned that Atty. Era had filed collection suits in the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City involving some of the checks; LANECO did not receive summons. Engr. Torres allegedly verified an answer without Board authorization, admitted the allegations, and a compromise judgment followed with garnishment of P2 million.
LANECO filed a petition for annulment of the RTC-Quezon City judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled the judgment for extrinsic fraud and ordered return of the garnished funds; the CA’s decision attained finality. LANECO then filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Era with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) on February 16, 2015. Commissioner Jose I. De la Rama, Jr. recommended a two-year suspension for violations of Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation.
The matter was brought to the Supreme Court for administrative disciplinary determination. The Court heard the IBP-CBD record, the CA decision on extrinsic fraud, and the parties’ submissions (Atty. Era filed an answer and multiple motions for extension but failed to file a position paper). The Supreme Court En Banc adopted the IBP-CBD ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did complainants establish by substantial evidence that Atty. Edgardo O. Era committed deceit, extrinsic fraud and other professional violations warranting disciplinary sanction, including disbarment?
- If respondent is culpable, should his stipulated attorney’s fees be reduced and, if so, to what amount?
- Should respondent be sanctioned for failing to file a position pape...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)