G.R. No. ADM. CASE NO. 9612; March 13, 2013
JOHNNY M. PESTO, Complainant, vs. MARCELITO M. MILLO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Johnny Pesto, a Canadian national, charged respondent Atty. Marcelito M. Millo with conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, misleading his client, bungling the transfer of title, and incompetence and negligence. In May 1990, Pesto’s wife, Abella Pesto, retained Atty. Millo to handle the transfer of title of a parcel of land to her name and the adoption of her niece. They gave him ₱14,000 for the transfer and ₱10,000 for the adoption. Atty. Millo repeatedly gave false information and excuses regarding the title transfer, making them believe the capital gains tax was paid in 1991, but they discovered in February 1995 it was unpaid, and he could not produce a receipt. After a confrontation, he reluctantly returned the ₱14,000 and promised in writing to assume the accrued penalties. Regarding the adoption, Atty. Millo led them to believe an interview with the Tarlac DSWD was scheduled for February 14, 1995, but none existed; he then scheduled a hearing for February 23 without informing them and failed to appear, requesting a postponement without their knowledge. The adoption case was considered closed due to two years of inaction. Pesto filed an administrative complaint with the IBP on March 14, 1995, seeking disciplinary action and refunds. Atty. Millo did not file an answer despite extensions and did not appear at hearings. Proceedings were delayed for years. In 2001, Atty. Millo, through a representative, claimed Pesto had died and Abella would withdraw the complaint. The IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Millo liable for violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the finding but modified the suspension to two months and ordered him to return ₱16,000. Atty. Millo’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Marcelito M. Millo is administratively liable for violating his professional duties to his clients.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Marcelito M. Millo is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s finding of liability but modified the penalty. By accepting the sums of money, Atty. Millo entered into a lawyer-client relationship and assumed the duty to render competent and diligent service. He failed in this duty by being inefficient and negligent in handling the title transfer and adoption case. He concealed his neglect by giving false information about paying the capital gains tax, which remained unpaid and exposed his clients to penalties. His failure to file an answer or seriously address the complaint, despite opportunities, further evidenced his disregard. He violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. His eventual return of the ₱14,000 and the eventual granting of the adoption did not absolve him of the initial neglect and deceit. The Court found his actions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court and a violation of his Lawyer’s Oath. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDED Atty. Marcelito M. Millo from the practice of law for six months, ORDERED him to return ₱10,000 (the amount given for the adoption case) to the heirs of Johnny and Abella Pesto with 6% legal interest per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment, and DIRECTED him to submit proof of compliance.