In the Philippine legal system, an attorney’s duty extends beyond mere representation; it encompasses competence, diligence, and honesty. This case underscores that failing to meet these standards by neglecting a client’s legal matters and providing misleading information constitutes a serious breach of professional responsibility. The Supreme Court held that such conduct warrants disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law. This ruling reinforces the principle that lawyers must uphold the integrity of the legal profession by prioritizing their clients’ interests and maintaining transparency in their dealings.

When Inaction Speaks Louder: The Case of Millo’s Unkept Promises

The case revolves around Johnny Pesto, a Canadian national, and his wife Abella, who engaged the services of Atty. Marcelito M. Millo for two separate legal matters: the transfer of land title to Abella’s name and the adoption of their niece. The Pestos paid Atty. Millo P14,000 for the title transfer and P10,000 for the adoption case. However, instead of diligently pursuing these matters, Atty. Millo repeatedly provided false information and excuses for his inaction. He claimed to have paid the capital gains tax in 1991, but later admitted he had not, eventually returning the P14,000. The adoption case was also mishandled, leading to its closure by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) due to Atty. Millo’s negligence.

Exasperated by Atty. Millo’s conduct, Johnny Pesto filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking disciplinary action against Atty. Millo and a refund of the penalties incurred due to the unpaid capital gains tax, as well as the fees paid for the adoption case. Despite being notified, Atty. Millo failed to file an answer or appear at the hearings, further compounding his misconduct. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) ultimately found Atty. Millo liable for violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his suspension from the practice of law.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit in its mandate:

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

x x x x

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of Atty. Millo’s actions, stating that his acceptance of the fees from the Pestos established a lawyer-client relationship, thereby obligating him to provide competent and efficient service. The Court further noted that his failure to fulfill this obligation, coupled with his attempts to conceal his negligence through false information, constituted a serious breach of professional ethics. The Court cited Dizon v. Laurente, emphasizing that an attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients, and must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Dizon v. Laurente, A.C. No. 6597, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 595, 600-601.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted Atty. Millo’s disregard for the IBP’s proceedings, stating that his failure to file an answer and attend the hearings demonstrated a lack of respect for the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers. The Court referenced Espiritu v. Ulep, drawing a parallel between Atty. Millo’s repeated absences and the respondent attorney’s attempt to evade the duty to explain his side. The Court stated that such conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, who is expected to obey Court orders and processes and stand foremost in complying with orders from the duly constituted authorities. Espiritu v. Ulep, A.C. No. 5808, May 4, 2005, 458 SCRA 1, 9-10.

The Court also dismissed Atty. Millo’s claim that he believed Abella would withdraw the complaint, stating that the withdrawal of an administrative charge does not automatically result in its dismissal. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are undertaken for the public welfare and to preserve the courts from the official ministration of unfit persons. The Court also emphasized that, relying on Bautista v. Bernabe, disciplinary proceedings are neither private interests nor afford redress for private grievances. Bautista v. Bernabe, A.C. No. 6963, February 9, 2006, 482 SCRA 1, 8. Thus, an attorney is called to answer for every misconduct he commits as an officer of the Court.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty, increasing the suspension period from two months to six months. The Court reasoned that Atty. Millo’s lack of remorse and the material prejudice caused to his clients warranted a more severe punishment. The Court also ordered Atty. Millo to refund the P10,000 paid for the adoption case, plus legal interest, but declined to order the refund of the penalties for the late payment of capital gains tax, citing that the Court is not a collection agency.

The Court, citing Hanrieder v. De Rivera, clarified that it may only direct the repayment of attorneys fees received on the basis that a respondent attorney did not render efficient service to the client. Hanrieder v. De Rivera, A.M. No. P-05-2026, August 2, 2007, 529 SCRA 46, 52. This decision serves as a reminder to all attorneys of their ethical obligations to their clients and the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Millo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting his clients’ legal matters and providing false information.
What specific violations was Atty. Millo found guilty of?	Atty. Millo was found guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, specifically relating to competence, diligence, and honesty in serving his clients.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty, suspending Atty. Millo from the practice of law for six months and ordering him to refund P10,000 plus legal interest.
Why did the Court increase the suspension period?	The Court increased the suspension period due to Atty. Millo’s lack of remorse and the material prejudice caused to his clients’ interests, warranting a more severe punishment.
What does Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require?	Canon 18 requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence, and Rule 18.03 specifically prohibits neglecting legal matters entrusted to them.
Did the Court order Atty. Millo to refund all the money he received?	No, the Court only ordered Atty. Millo to refund the P10,000 paid for the adoption case, plus legal interest, but not the penalties for the late payment of capital gains tax.
Why didn’t the Court order the refund of the capital gains tax penalties?	The Court stated that it is not a collection agency and can only direct the repayment of attorneys fees for services not efficiently rendered.
What is the significance of this case for lawyers in the Philippines?	This case reinforces the importance of ethical conduct, diligence, and honesty in serving clients, and serves as a warning against neglecting legal matters and providing false information.
What happens if a lawyer disregards IBP orders during an investigation?	Disregarding IBP orders demonstrates a lack of respect for the Judiciary and the legal profession, which can lead to disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a crucial reminder to all members of the Philippine Bar: the practice of law is a privilege that demands the highest standards of ethical conduct, competence, and diligence. Attorneys must always prioritize their clients’ interests and maintain transparency in their dealings. Failure to do so can result in severe disciplinary consequences, including suspension from the practice of law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Johnny M. Pesto v. Marcelito M. Millo, A.C. No. 9612, March 13, 2013