The Supreme Court found disbarred lawyer Edgardo O. Era guilty of indirect contempt for failing to comply with an earlier ruling that ordered him to return PHP 4,159,749.05 to Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative (LANECO). The Court also directed the issuance of a Writ of Execution to enforce that order.
In its Resolution, the Court denied with finality Era's Motion, for Leave of Court, to Recognize Incorporated Motion for Issuance of Writ of Error for Coram Nobis with Judicial Notice, and imposed fines against him for indirect contempt and for disobedience of the Court's orders.
The Case
The present case originated from a Verified Complaint for disbarment filed by complainants-members of LANECO, namely, Reinario B. Bihag, Benjamin Cabatic, Claire Grebem Elumir, Nassrollah D. Montud, and former members of the Board of Directors of LANECO, namely, Mateo Cortes, Karim Macarompan, Donato Calica, Jr., Teddy Bemales, and Edgar Demavivas (collectively Bihag, et al.), before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
In the November 23, 2021 Decision (Assailed Decision), the Court held Era administratively liable for violations of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canons 1, 7, 10, 15, 17, 20, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, 10.03, 20.01, 20.02 and 20.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He was disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount of PHP 4,159,749.05 to LANECO.
The Court found that Era split LANECO's causes of action into two separate petitions to charge multiple fees, overcharged his success fees, deliberately withheld a copy of the engagement contract from the LANECO Board of Directors, and colluded with Engineer Resnol Torres to manipulate the outcome of a collection suit against LANECO for the recovery of his success fees.
Despite a lapse of over two years since the Assailed Decision, Era failed to comply with the order to return the amount. Bihag, et al. filed a Motion with Manifestation dated March 4, 2024. The Court then issued a Show Cause Order dated May 28, 2024, directing Era to explain why he should not be held in contempt. Era responded with several pleadings, including his October 18, 2024 Motion for Issuance of Writ of Error, in which he alleged suppression and fabrication of evidence and prayed for the case to be remanded to the IBP-CBD for reinvestigation.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether Era should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Assailed Decision, and whether the complainants' motions could be treated as a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the directive to return PHP 4,159,749.05 to LANECO.
The Ruling
The Court held that the Assailed Decision had long attained finality, and thus execution should issue as a matter of right on motion of the complainants. It treated the complainants' Motion with Manifestation and Comment/Opposition as their motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.
The Court resolved to deny with finality Era's Motion for Issuance of Writ of Error; to find Era guilty of indirect contempt of the Supreme Court, ordering him to pay a fine of PHP 30,000.00; and to find him guilty of the less serious offense of willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court under Canon VI, Section 34(c) of the CPRA, ordering him to pay a fine of PHP 35,000.00. Both fines are payable within 30 days from notice.
The Court directed the clerk of court of the Supreme Court to issue, within 10 days from notice, a Writ of Execution ordering Era to return to LANECO the amount of PHP 4,159,749.05, with implementation coursed through the executive judge and the ex-officio sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Era was sternly warned that failure to comply would be dealt with more severely.
By the Numbers
- Amount to be returned to LANECO: PHP 4,159,749.05
- Fine for indirect contempt: PHP 30,000.00
- Fine for disobedience under Canon VI, Section 34(c) of the CPRA: PHP 35,000.00
- Earlier fine for non-compliance with IBP-CBD directives: PHP 10,000.00
- Assailed Decision promulgated: November 23, 2021
- Show Cause Order: May 28, 2024
- Complainants' Motion with Manifestation: March 4, 2024
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that Era only began filing pleadings questioning the Assailed Decision after March 4, 2024, when complainants stated he had failed to comply with the order to return the money. By that point, the Assailed Decision had long attained finality, and execution should issue as a matter of right on motion.
Although complainants never expressly prayed for a writ of execution, the Court found their Motion with Manifestation to be in the nature of a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, in substantial compliance with Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Because the Supreme Court has no sheriff of its own and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals is not yet fully organized, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City was directed to execute the money judgment under Rule 39, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, with the executive judge of the RTC in Quezon City authorized to oversee the proceedings.
Source: Supreme Court Resolution in A.C. No. 12880 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4573), penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.