AC 10697; (March, 2019) (Digest)
A.C. No. 10697. March 25, 2019. LARRY C. SEVILLA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCELO C. MILLO, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Larry Sevilla, publisher of the Pampango Footprints newspaper, issued a statement of account to Spouses Manalo for publishing a notice of auction sale related to their foreclosure petition. Respondent Atty. Marcelo Millo, counsel for the spouses, deemed the fee exorbitant, refused payment, and threatened to petition for the newspaper’s disqualification, writing a letter to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Tarlac City.
Subsequently, the spouses negotiated a 50% discount with complainant, which he accepted. However, respondent intervened and forbade his clients from paying. When complainant called to discuss the matter, respondent shouted that he was busy and did not wish to talk, then banged his phone. Respondent denied liability, asserting he acted on his clients’ instructions and claimed the complainant’s failure to issue an affidavit of publication hindered the foreclosure.
ISSUE
Whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned for his actions.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. While lawyers owe fidelity and diligence to their clients, their zeal must conform to professional rules. Canon 1, Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to encourage clients to settle a controversy if it admits of a fair settlement. The Court found respondent violated this rule. He did not attempt to negotiate the fee dispute with complainant and instead escalated it by writing to the Executive Judge. Most critically, he actively obstructed a settlement by forbidding his clients from paying the mutually agreed discounted fee and by rudely rebuffing complainant’s call. This conduct prejudiced his own clients, as the non-payment resulted in the non-issuance of the required affidavit of publication, stalling the foreclosure proceedings.
Considering the violation and that it was his first offense, the Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty of reprimand. In line with precedent where a lawyer’s actions cause injury or potential interference with a legal proceeding, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one month, with a stern warning against repetition.