BAUTISTA vs CEFRA

Adm. Case No. 5530

January 28, 2013

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 RTC of
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Atty was counsel of complainants.The complainants
engaged the services of Atty. Cefra to represent them in the proceedings.
According to the complainants, they lost the case because of Atty. Cefra’s
negligence in performing his duties as their counsel.

Despite the extensions of time given by the Court, Atty. Cefra did not file
any comment on the complaint. He did not also comply with the Court’s Minute
Resolutions directing him to pay a P2,000.00 fine and to submit the required
comment.The court held Atty. Cefra in contempt of court, ordering his
detention for five (5) days. On August 4, 2008, Atty. Cefra filed his
Comment denying the allegations in the complaint. Atty. Cefra puts it, the
administrative complaint was the result of the complainants’ failure to fully
understand the RTC’s decision.

The investigating commissioner recommended the dismissal of the

complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The IBP Board of Governors reversed
the findings of the investigating commissioner and found Atty.Cefra negligent
in handling complainants case and unanimously approved his suspension from
the practice of law for six months.

Atty.Cefra filed a motion for reconsideration which was partly granted

and modified from suspension to reprimand.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty.Cefra was negligent.

Held:

YES. 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."

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.

The records further substantiate clear acts of negligence on Atty. Cefra’s part in
handling the complainants’ case.

First, Atty. Cefra failed to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence

within the period given by the RTC. Second, Atty. Cefra failed to comply
with the two (2) orders of the RTC directing him to submit a formal offer
of documentary evidence. Third, Atty. Cefra failed to file an appropriate
motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial measure to contest the RTC’s
decision. His claim that the complainants had not been prejudiced by the
RTC’s decision is incorrect. Fourth, Atty. Cefra’s allegations in his
Comment show his failure to effectively communicate with the
complainants. As Atty. Cefra puts it, the administrative complaint was
the result of the complainants’ failure to fully understand the RTC’s
decision. In other words, he admits that the present case would have
been averted had he exerted reasonable efforts to inform the
complainants of the legal implications of the RTC’s decision and to
explain to them the material developments in the case.

We significantly note that even before this Court, Atty. Cefra’s conduct was less
than what is expected of an officer of the Court. He was held in contempt for
his cavalier and indifferent attitude in complying with the Court’s directives.
 IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IN CA- PRESENT: GR.CV NO. 94656, v. ATTY. GIDEON D.V. MORTEL,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 10117
July 25, 2016

Facts:
On July 20, 2010, the C.A. Issued a Notice for Atty. Mortel to file an
appellant’s brief on behalf of his client, Angelita De Jesus, within the regulatory
period of 45 days from notice. It just so happened that Atty. Mortel recently
moved out of his office at Herrera Tower, Makati City due to high cost of
maintenance. While looking for a new office, he requested to use the address of
his friend's law firm as his address on record for the Bank of the Philippine
Islands, which was also granted by his friend, Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose,
on August 2010. Hence, Atty. Mortel's address was listed as Unit 2106, Phil AXA
Life Center, 1286 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave; Makati City, the same address as MFV Jose
Law Office (his friend's law office). Any communication, court address to MFV
Jose Law Office were received by the law firm's staff, then passed to the desk of
Atty. Jose for monitoring and checking. Atty. Jose would forward these to the
handling lawyer in the office. The law firm's messenger, Randy G. Lucero was
tasked with informing Atty. Mortel whenever there was a resolution or order
pertinent to Bank of Philippine Islands. Initially, Randy de Leon, Atty. Mortel's
messenger went to MFV Law office to inquire if it had received notices for Atty.
Mortel. Since none came at that time, de Leon left his number with Lucero. The
two agreed that Lucero would text de Leon, should any court notice or order for
Atty. Mortel arrive.
On August 16, 2010; instead of heeding the Court of Appeal's Notice to
file the appellant’s brief, Atty. Mortel moved to withdraw Angelita de Jesus'
appeal. After which, he stopped communicating with MFV Law Office and
instructed de Leon to do the same. On September 20, 2010; the C.A. Directed
respondent to secure and submit Angelita de Jesus' (his client) written
conformity to the Motion to Withdraw Appeal within five days from notice,
which respondent failed to comply. On November 11, 2010, C.A. Again directed
Atty. Mortel to comply with the September 20, 2010 Resolution, warning him of
disciplinary action if he fails to secure and submit Angelita de Jesus' written
conformity to the motion within the regalement period, but Atty. Mortel didn't
comply. Thus, on February 23, 2011, C.A. Resolved to deny the motion to
withdraw appeal, reiterating the notice dated July 20, 2010, directing
respondent's client to file appellant’s brief within 45 days from notice and
directing respondent to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt for
non-compliance with the court's order, but he did not comply. By February 23,
2011, Resolution was sent to Angelita de Jesus' recorded address; but it was
returned with the notion “move out” on the envelope. So on March 28, 2011, the
C.A. Resolved to direct Atty. Mortel to furnish it with his client's complete
present address, within 10 days from notice, but Mortel again, did not comply.
And despite C.A's effort of sending the same order to Atty. Mortel on July 5,
2011 and October 13, 2013, no response from him was sent to the C.A, nor was
there any action taken by the respondent.
On August 13, 2012, C.A. Resolved to order respondent to pay within 10
days from notice, the fine of ten thousand pesos imposed upon him under the
May 16, 2012 Resolution, but still no response from him was ever received by
the C.A.
On April 26, 2013, C.A. Directed respondent to show cause on why he
should not be suspended from the legal practice, for ignoring the May 16, 2012
Resolution, which fined him ten thousand pesos; but the same thing happened.
And so the C.A sent a notice to MFV Jose Law Office, stating that he has been
suspended from the legal service for 6 months, with a stern warning against
repeating such actions. He was also directed to comply with the previous
Resolutions of the C.A.
On October 23, 2013; office of the bar confidant issued a report stating
that it docketed the C.A's August 14, 2013 resolution as a regular
administrative case against Atty. Mortel. In the resolution dated January 20,
2014 that Atty. Jose read the January 20, 2014 resolution which was meant for
the respondent, and saw that respondent had been suspended by the C.A. So he
immediately tried looking for the respondent's new contact number from a
mutual friend, until he was able to get in touched with him. He then asked his
messenger, Mr. Lucero as to why the resolutions were not forwarded to Atty.
Mortel. Lucero answered that he would usually text de Leon, Atty. Mortel's
messenger whenever there was an order or resolution pertinent to the case; but
de Leon would no longer text back, So he just simply kept his copies in the
office racks, hoping that either de Leon or the respondent himself would pick
them up one day.
On March 5, 2014, Atty. Mortel filed before the C.A an omnibus motion
and manifestation with profuse appologies, and informing the court of his
present address which is No. 2806 Tower 2, Pioneer Highlands, Mandaluyong
city. He also prayed for the reinstatement of the motion to withdraw Appeal.
The acceptance of his compliance with the September 20, 2010 and November
11, 2010 resolutions of the court of appeals, the grant for his motion and the
recall of all previous orders or resolutions of the court of appeals.
On his March 7, 2014 comment, respondent argues that he honestly
believed that the case was already closed in light of his motion to withdraw
appeal, and that he did not expect that a requirement of conformity of the
client would be needed in as much as the act of counsel binds the client.
According to him, the filing of which is a matter of right, not needing client's
conformity. So he did not bother to visit MFV Jose Law office again, or send his
messenger to check the law firm if there were resolutions or orders for him.
In the resolution of February 9, 2015, C.A. Noted Mortel's comment, and
required the sixth division of the C.A. Manila to file a reply within 10 days from
notice. In the resolution of May 30, 2016, C.A dispensed with the filing of the
reply.
Issue:
1. Whether there are grounds for this court to probe into Atty. Marcelino
Ferdinand V. Jose's possible administrative liability.
2. Whether respondent should be imposed a disciplinary sanction.
Held:
Atty. Jose failed to measure up to his part of the deal. He delegated
everything to his messenger without adequately supervising him. As Managing
Partner of his firm, Atty. Jose can be expected to have supervisory duties over
his firm's associates and support staff, among others. Him not knowing
respondent's new number does not suffice because in the first place, Atty. Jose
showed that he could easily get respondent's new number through a mutual
friend. Yet, he only did so four years later. The court stressed that in this age of
social media, it is fairly easy to get connected with someone without even
leaving one's location.

In addition, Atty. Jose's reading of the court's January 20, 2014

resolution is also highly questionable. While the resolution was sent to his law
firm, it was addressed to respondent, a lawyer not under his employ. Canon 21,
Rule 21.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility generally allows
disclosure of a client's affairs only to partners or associates of the law firm,
unless the client prohibits it. Respondent is not a partner or associate of MFV
Jose Law Office. Atty. Jose stated under oath that respondent requested to use
MFV Jose Law Office's address s his mailing address only in August 2010, after
respondent had already filed his appeal (specific date not mentioned).
Assuming that respondent's request was granted as early as August 1, 2010,
this does not help him in any way.

The Court of Appeals Notice for respondent to file an appellant's brief

was issued one month earlier, on July 20, 2010, when respondent still used his
old address on record at Herrera Tower, Rufino St., corner Valero St., Makati
City. Thus, respondent's sending De Leon, his messenger, to the new
forwarding address at MFV Jose Law Office to get updates anytime between
August 1, 2010 and August 16, 2010 would certainly have yielded no result. In
this hypothetical scenario, the Court of Appeals would have sent the Notice to
his old address on record. That he allegedly did not receive the July 20, 2010
Notice from the Court of Appeals was, therefore, his own lookout. Respondent's
gross negligence and lack of foresight is apparent. He did not make it easy for
MFV Law office to reach him. Respondent therefore failed to adopt an efficient
and orderly system of receiving and attending promptly to all judicial notices;
so the fault was his to bear.
s
Wherefore, Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose is directed to show cause
within ten days from receipt of a copy of his resolution as to why he sjould not
be disciplined by the court; and respondent Atty. Gideon D. Mortel is
suspended from the practice of law for one year, for violating Canons 7,10,11,
12 and 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the code of professional responsibility and
warned that the repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely.