TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that an attorney who neglects a client’s case, provides false information, and fails to act with diligence violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath. Atty. Marcelito M. Millo was found guilty of neglecting his client’s cases related to a property title transfer and an adoption, misleading them about tax payments, and failing to attend scheduled hearings. The Court emphasized that lawyers must be honest and diligent, safeguarding their clients’ interests. As a result, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Millo from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return the attorney’s fees he received for the adoption case, plus interest. This decision underscores the importance of competence, diligence, and honesty in the legal profession.

Broken Promises: When a Lawyer’s Neglect Harms Clients

This case revolves around Johnny Pesto’s complaint against Atty. Marcelito M. Millo, accusing him of conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, misleading his client, bungling a property title transfer, and demonstrating incompetence and negligence. The core legal question is whether Atty. Millo’s actions constituted a breach of his professional duties as a lawyer.

In May 1990, Abella Pesto hired Atty. Millo to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of land and the adoption of her niece. Johnny and Abella paid Atty. Millo P14,000 for the title transfer and P10,000 for the adoption. However, Atty. Millo repeatedly provided false information and excuses regarding his inability to complete the title transfer. He also falsely claimed to have paid the capital gains tax in 1991. Upon discovering the unpaid tax in 1995, Johnny confronted Atty. Millo, who eventually returned the P14,000 after much stalling and promised to cover the accrued penalties.

Atty. Millo’s neglect extended to the adoption case, which the Tarlac DSWD considered closed due to two years of inaction. He misled Johnny and Abella about scheduled interviews and hearings, causing them significant inconvenience and distress. This prompted Johnny to file an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in March 1995, seeking disciplinary action against Atty. Millo and a refund of the penalties and the adoption case fee. Despite being notified, Atty. Millo failed to file an answer or attend hearings. The IBP eventually found him liable for violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a suspension and the return of P16,000 to the complainant.

The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings, modifying the suspension to two months and ordering the return of P16,000. Atty. Millo moved for reconsideration, claiming that Abella had intended to withdraw the complaint and that the adoption case had been granted. However, the IBP Board denied the motion, leading to the Supreme Court’s review.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s Resolution, emphasizing that attorneys owe fidelity to their clients. They must safeguard their clients’ interests from the moment of engagement until their effective release. Atty. Millo’s acceptance of the fees initiated a lawyer-client relationship, obligating him to render competent and efficient service. However, he failed to discharge this duty, concealing his inefficiency by providing false information about the capital gains tax payment. This failure directly contravened Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states:

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 Court also noted Atty. Millo’s failure to take the complaint seriously, ignoring it for an extended period. His failure to file an answer or attend hearings further demonstrated his disregard for the judicial process and his professional responsibilities. The Court stated that an attorney charged in a disbarment proceeding must provide an explanation to demonstrate continued morality and integrity. Furthermore, the Court found Atty. Millo’s claim that Abella assured him of withdrawing the complaint to be a mere attempt to salvage his reputation, emphasizing that withdrawal of an administrative charge does not warrant dismissal of proceedings.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the penalty, suspending Atty. Millo from the practice of law for six months, as opposed to the IBP’s initial recommendation of two months. This decision was based on Atty. Millo’s lack of remorse and the material prejudice caused to his clients’ interests. The Court ordered him to return the P10,000 given for the adoption case, plus interest, underscoring that lawyers must be ethical and professional in dealing with clients who place their trust in them. The Court emphasized that misconduct has no place in the legal profession, where attorneys take a solemn oath to act with fidelity and diligence. Although Atty. Millo had already returned the P14,000, the Court did not order him to refund the penalties for the late tax payment as the Court cannot act as a collection agency.

FAQs

This case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with the privilege of practicing law. Attorneys must uphold the highest standards of competence, diligence, and ethical conduct to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and protect the interests of their clients. Failure to do so can result in severe consequences, including suspension from practice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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