SPOUSES ARCING V. ATTY.

CEFRA
A.C. No. 5530, January 28, 2013
Brion, J.

FACTS: The case is about a complaint for disbarment filed by petitioners against
respondent, Atty. Cefra. Respondent was the legal counsel of the petitioners in the
Civil Case No. U-6504. According to the petitioners, they lost the said case
because of the negligence of Atty. Cefra in performing his duties as their counsel.
They alleged that: (a) Atty. Cefra disregarded RTC’s orders; (b) he belatedly
submitted documentary requirements; and (c) he did not file any other remedial
pleading to contest the RTC’s decision.

Thereafter, the Court ordered Atty. Cefra to comment on the complaint, but he
failed to do so, despite the extension of time. He also did not comply with the
Court’s Minute Resolutions ordering him to pay a fine and submit the required
document. For this reason, the Court held Atty. Cefra in contempt of court, which
ordered his detention for 5 days. Finally, on August 4, 2008, more than two years
after the Court’s latest Minute order, Atty. Cefra filed his comment, denying the
allegations of the complainants.

On September 24, 2008, the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report
and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal
of the case stating that there was no sufficient evidence showing that respondent
needs disciplinary action since the claim of the complainants over the properties in
the Civil Case No. U-6504 was not affected by the Decision of the court.

However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner and instead found Atty. Cefra guilty. Consequently, they approved
his suspension to the practice of law for 6 months. When Atty. Cefra filed a motion
for reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors partially granted it by changing
his penalty to Reprimanded instead of Suspension.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cefra was negligent in the performance his duty as
the counsel of petitioners

RULING: The Court finds Atty. Cefra guilty of negligence in handling the
complainants’ case. These acts of negligence can be summed up into four main
points. First, he failed to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence within the
period given by the RTC. He only submitted such 5 months after the order.
Second, he failed to comply with 2 orders of the RTC. Neither did he give reasons
on why he could not make the required formal order of documentary evidence.
Third, he failed to file an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial
measure to contest the RTC’s decision. Such failure apparently prejudiced his
clients. Lastly, Atty. Cefra’s allegations in his Comment show his failure to
effectively communicate with complainants.

In sum, the above actuations showing Atty. Cefra's lack of diligence and
inattention to his duties as a lawyer warrant disciplinary sanction. Lawyers are
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality,
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Cefra is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 1 year
and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt
with more severely.