Pesto v. Millo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Johnny M. Pesto, a Canadian national, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Marcelito M. Millo for conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, misleading his client, bungling the transfer of title, and incompetence and negligence. Pesto alleged that in May 1990, his wife Abella Pesto retained Atty. Millo's services to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of land and the adoption of her niece. They paid Atty. Millo ₱14,000.00 for the title transfer and ₱10,000.00 for the adoption. Atty. Millo allegedly provided false information and excuses regarding the title transfer, claiming the capital gains tax was paid in 1991 when it was not, leading to penalties. He also allegedly mishandled the adoption case, causing it to be considered closed by the Department of Social Welfare and Development due to inaction and misrepresenting scheduled interviews and hearings. Procedural History: Johnny Pesto filed the administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 14, 1995. The IBP ordered Atty. Millo to file an answer, but he failed to do so despite granted extensions and did not appear at hearings. The proceedings were held in abeyance for several years. After Pesto wrote to the IBP President, a hearing was scheduled for June 29, 2001. Atty. Millo appeared through a representative, claiming Pesto had died and his wife would withdraw the complaint. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline deemed the case submitted for resolution on October 11, 2001. Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez submitted a report on October 4, 2010, finding Atty. Millo liable and recommending a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XX-2011-235 on November 19, 2011, affirmed the findings but reduced the suspension to two months and ordered Atty. Millo to return ₱16,000.00. Atty. Millo moved for reconsideration, which was denied on June 9, 2012. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court following the IBP Board of Governors' resolution. The Court reviewed the findings of misconduct against Atty. Millo for violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer's Oath due to his inefficiency, negligence, and failure to serve his clients with competence and diligence. The Court considered Atty. Millo's lack of remorse, his prolonged neglect of the case, and his consistent absence from hearings. While affirming the finding of guilt, the Court modified the penalty imposed by the IBP. The Court ordered Atty. Millo's suspension from the practice of law for six months, a modification from the IBP's two-month suspension, and directed him to return ₱10,000.00 with legal interest for the adoption case, noting that the ₱14,000.00 for the title transfer had already been returned.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Millo is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court for his inefficiency and lack of diligence in handling the transfer of title and the adoption case, and whether he violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the penalty imposed by the IBP is appropriate, considering Atty. Millo's conduct and the prejudice caused to his clients. Whether Atty. Millo should be ordered to refund any amounts to his clients, specifically regarding penalties and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed Resolution No. XX-2011-235, but modified the penalty. Atty. Marcelito M. Millo was found guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. He was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and ordered to return ₱10,000.00 to the heirs of Johnny and Abella Pesto, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Millo's guilt for conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court and violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that Atty. Millo's acceptance of money from Johnny and Abella Pesto initiated a lawyer-client relationship, imposing upon him the duty to render competent and efficient professional service. He failed to discharge this duty by being inefficient and negligent, concealing his shortcomings by providing false information about the payment of capital gains tax. This negligence rendered the clients liable for substantial penalties. The Court emphasized that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence makes him liable. Atty. Millo's failure to take the administrative complaint seriously, his prolonged inaction, and his failure to file a written answer despite opportunities, forfeited his right to explain. His belated claim of "misunderstanding" was insufficient to refute the charges, indicating the complaint had substance. The return of the ₱14,000.00 and the eventual granting of the adoption case did not obliterate his liability, as these events were post facto and inevitable due to the passage of time. The Court stressed that such neglect and ineptitude inflicted material prejudice on the clients' interests. On the issue of the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court found the IBP's recommended penalty of two months' suspension insufficient. It noted Atty. Millo's lack of remorse and his failure to take the complaint seriously, which warranted a longer suspension. The Court highlighted that Atty. Millo's conduct displayed evasion and utter disrespect for the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers by consistently absenting himself from scheduled hearings. His claim that Abella Pesto would withdraw the complaint was disbelieved and treated as a belated attempt to save himself, as the withdrawal of an administrative charge does not automatically lead to dismissal. Disciplinary proceedings are for the public welfare to preserve the courts from unfit practitioners. Given the material prejudice caused to the clients and the lack of remorse, the Court deemed a suspension of six months to be the condign and commensurate penalty. On the issue of refunding amounts to the clients: The Court clarified that it could not order the refund of the ₱15,643.75 in penalties for late payment of capital gains tax, as it is not a collection agency, but could order the repayment of attorney's fees for inefficient service. Therefore, Atty. Millo was ordered to refund the ₱10,000.00 for the adoption case, plus legal interest.
Main Doctrine
An attorney who conceals his inefficiency and lack of diligence by giving wrong information to his client regarding the matter subject of their professional relationship is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, violating his Lawyer's Oath and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Failure to file an answer and appear at hearings, despite due notice, constitutes disrespect for the Judiciary and exacerbates the misconduct.