PESTO v MILLO | A.C No.

9612 March 13, 2013

FACTS:
Johnny averred that his wife Abella Pesto retained the services of Atty. Millo to handle the
transfer of title over a parcel of land to her name, and the adoption of her niece, Arvi Jane Dizon.
Johnny and Abella gave to Atty. Millo the amounts of P14,000.00 for the transfer of title
and P10,000.00 for the adoption case. Atty. Millo thereafter repeatedly gave them false information
and numerous excuses to explain his inability to complete the transfer of title. That Atty. Millo
likewise made them believe that the capital gains tax for the property had been paid way back in
1991, but they found out upon their return to the country in February 1995 that he had not yet paid
the tax. When they confronted him, Atty. Millo insisted that he had already paid the same, but he
could not produce any receipt for the supposed payment. Atty. Millo reluctantly returned to Abella
the amount of P14,000.00 only after he stormed out of Atty. Millo's office in exasperation over his
stalling tactics and that Atty. Millo then further promised in writing to assume the liability for the
accrued penalties.
Likewise, Johnny blamed Atty. Millo for letting the adoption case be considered closed by
the Tarlac Office of the DSWD due to two years of inaction. He stated that Atty. Millo made him and
his wife believe that an interview with the Tarlac DSWD had been scheduled on February 14, 1995,
but when they arrived at the Tarlac DSWD they were dismayed to be told that no such interview
had been scheduled and Atty. Millo could not be reached at all and that it was only upon reaching
home in Quezon City when he received word from Atty. Millo that a hearing had again been
scheduled on February 23, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. When they went to the hearing, Atty. Millo could not
be found and that they learned after an hour of waiting in the courthouse in Tarlac that Atty. Millo
had requested the hearing to be moved to the afternoon without their knowledge.
Because of this Johnny brought an administrative complaint in the IBP praying for disciplinary
action to be taken against Atty. Millo, and seeking the refund of P15,643.75 representing the
penalties for the non-payment of the capital gains tax, and of the P10,000.00 given for the adoption
case. Being a resident of Canada, he constituted one Tita Lomotan as his attorney-in-fact to
represent him during his and his wife's absence from the country.
The IBP ordered Atty. Millo to file his answer. Although an extension of the period to file was
granted at his instance, he filed no answer in the end. He did not also appear at the hearings despite
due notice.
In the meantime, the IBP required Johnny through Lomotan to engage a counsel. The proceedings
were held in abeyance to await the appropriate motion from Johnny's counsel. The administrative
matter did not move for several years. The long delay prompted Johnny to write to the President of
the IBP. Then the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled another hearing and it was at that
hearing that Atty. Millo appeared through a representative, and presented a manifestation/motion,
whereby he claimed that Johnny had meanwhile died, and that Abella would be withdrawing the
complaint against him.
Investigating Commissioner submitted a report and recommendation, finding Atty. Millo liable for
violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended his suspension
from the practice of law for 6 months.
The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of Investigating Commissioner but lowered the
suspension to 2 months and ordered Atty. Millo to return the amount of P16,000.00.
Atty. Millo moved for a reconsideration, stating that he had honestly believed that Abella had
already caused the withdrawal of the complaint prior to her own death and that he had already
caused the preparation of the documents necessary for the transfer of the certificate of title, and
had also returned the P14,000.00 paid by Johnny and that the adoption case had been finally
granted by the trial court. That he had lost contact with Johnny and Abella who resided in Canada
and that Juan Daquis, Abella's brother, could have confirmed that the charge had arisen from a
simple misunderstanding, and that Abella would cause the withdrawal of the complaint, except that
Daquis had meanwhile died in November 2011. The IBP Board of Governors, however denied Atty.
Millo's motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:  WON Atty. Millo violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR?
RULING:
YES. Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients. He must be ever
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the clients. His duty to safeguard the clients'
interests commences from his engagement as such, and lasts until his effective release by the
clients. In that time, he is expected to take every reasonable step and exercise ordinary care as his
clients' interests may require. Atty. Millo's acceptance of the sums of money from Johnny and Abella
to enable him to attend to the transfer of title and to complete the adoption case initiated the
lawyer-client relationship between them. From that moment on, Atty. Millo assumed the duty to
render competent and efficient professional service to them as his clients. Yet, he failed to discharge
his duty. He was inefficient and negligent in going about what the professional service he had
assumed required him to do. He concealed his inefficiency and neglect by giving false information
to his clients about having already paid the capital gains tax. In reality, he did not pay the capital
gains tax, rendering the clients liable for a substantial financial liability in the form of penalties.
Without doubt, Atty. Millo had the obligation to serve his clients with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, expressly so demanded of him, to wit: CANON 18. A lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence. 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.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that an attorney who is made a respondent in a disbarment
proceeding should submit an explanation, and should meet the issue and overcome the evidence
against him. The obvious reason for the requirement is that an attorney thus charged must thereby
prove that he still maintained that degree of morality and integrity expected of him at all times. And
his disregard of the IBP's orders requiring his attendance in the hearings was not only
irresponsible, but also constituted utter disrespect for the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers. Such
conduct was absolutely unbecoming of a lawyer, because lawyers are particularly called upon to
obey Court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with orders from
the duly constituted authorities. Surprisingly, Atty. Millo claimed that his belated response to the
charge was due to the assurances of Abella that she would be withdrawing the complaint. The Court
disbelieves him, however, and treats his claim as nothing but a belated attempt to save the day for
himself. He ought to remember that the withdrawal of an administrative charge for suspension or
disbarment based on an attorney's professional misconduct or negligence will not furnish a ground
to dismiss the charge. Suspension or disbarment proceedings that are warranted will still proceed
regardless of the lack or loss of interest on the part of the complainant. The Court may even entirely
ignore the withdrawal of the complaint, and continue to investigate in order to finally determine
whether the charge of professional negligence or misconduct was borne out by the record. This
approach bespeaks the Court's consistent view that the Legal Profession is not only a lofty and
noble calling, but also a rare privilege reserved only for the deserving.
The Court modified Atty. Millo’s penalty because he displayed no remorse as to his
misconduct, and could not be given a soft treatment. His professional misconduct warranted a
longer suspension from the practice of law because he had caused material prejudice to the clients'
interest. The Court ruled that he should remember that misconduct has no place in the heart and
mind of a lawyer who has taken the solemn oath to delay no man for money or malice, and to
conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion. 
The Court notes that Atty. Millo already returned the P14,000.00 received for the transfer of
title. Although he ought also to refund the amount of P15,643.75 representing the penalty for the
late payment of the capital gains tax, the Court cannot order him to refund that amount because it is
not a collection agency.
The Court finds Atty. Millo guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR and the
Lawyer's Oath, suspends him from the practice of law for a period of 6 months effective from notice,
with the stern warning that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely and
orders him to return to the heirs of Johnny and Abella Pesto within 10 days from notice the sum
of P10,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until
full payment and directs him to promptly submit to the SC a written proof of his compliance within
30 days from notice of this decision.