[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
84 views2 pages

SPOUSES ARCING VS CEFRA - Adm. Case No. 5530 January 28, 2013

The complainants hired Atty. Cefra to represent them in a civil case regarding quieting of title, recovery of possession, and damages. [1] However, Atty. Cefra was negligent in his representation by failing to submit documentary exhibits as ordered by the court and belatedly submitting them after the complainants' right to submit had been waived. [2] He also did not file any motion or appeal to contest the court's decision against the complainants. [3] The IBP found Atty. Cefra negligent and suspended him for six months, but this was later reduced to a reprimand. However, the court found the reprimand insufficient given the gravity of Atty. Cefra's

Uploaded by

Imee Callao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
84 views2 pages

SPOUSES ARCING VS CEFRA - Adm. Case No. 5530 January 28, 2013

The complainants hired Atty. Cefra to represent them in a civil case regarding quieting of title, recovery of possession, and damages. [1] However, Atty. Cefra was negligent in his representation by failing to submit documentary exhibits as ordered by the court and belatedly submitting them after the complainants' right to submit had been waived. [2] He also did not file any motion or appeal to contest the court's decision against the complainants. [3] The IBP found Atty. Cefra negligent and suspended him for six months, but this was later reduced to a reprimand. However, the court found the reprimand insufficient given the gravity of Atty. Cefra's

Uploaded by

Imee Callao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SPOUSES ARCING VS.

CEFRA
Adm. Case No. 5530 January 28, 2013
(Negligence ; Rules 18.03 and 18.04 Code of Professional Responsibility)

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence." It further states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In addition, a lawyer has the corresponding
duty to "keep the client informed of the status of his case.

SPOUSES ARCING AND CRESING BAUTISTA, EDAY RAGADIO and


FRANCING GALGALAN, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. ARTURO CEFRA, Respondent.

FACTS

The complainants were the defendants in Civil Case No. U-6504 an action for quieting
of title, recovery of possession and damages filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 45, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. The complainants engaged the services of Atty.
Cefra to represent them in the proceedings. According to the complainants, they lost in
Civil Case No. U-6504 because of Atty. Cefra’s negligence in performing his duties as
their counsel. First, Atty. Cefra only presented testimonial evidence and disregarded
two (2) orders of the RTC directing him to submit a formal offer of documentary
exhibits. Second, Atty. Cefra belatedly submitted the formal offer of documentary
exhibits after the complainants had been declared to have waived their right to make a
submission. Third, Atty. Cefra did not file a motion or appeal and neither did he file any
other remedial pleading to contest the RTC’s decision rendered against them. The IBP
Board of Governors found Atty. Cefra negligent in handling the complainants’ case and
unanimously approved his suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. This
was however reversed to REPRIMAND due to the motion for reconsideration filed by
Atty. Cefra.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT Atty. Cefra is guilty of negligence. (YES)

RULING

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence It further states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable." In addition, a lawyer has the corresponding duty to "keep the client informed of
the status of his case."

In Jardin v. Villar, Jr., the Court held: Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts it for a fee or free. Certainly, a member of the Bar who is worth his title cannot
afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical fashion. A lawyer’s lethargy from the
perspective of the Canons is both unprofessional and unethical. Atty. Cefra failed to live
up to these standards. Interestingly, he did not deny the complainants’ allegations and
impliedly admitted his actions in the proceedings in Civil Case No. U-6504. Under the
circumstances, the IBP Board of Governors’ recommended penalty of simple reprimand
is not commensurate with the gravity of Atty. Cefra’s infractions. As the complainants
incurred pecuniary damage by reason of Atty. Cefra’s negligence, a suspension of one
(1) year from the practice of law is in order,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find Atty. Arturo Cefra guilty of negligence,
in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.

You might also like