Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PESTO VS. MILLO, ADM. CASE NO. 9612, MAR. 13, 213 !9612 "#$gli$g %& clie$t's
(%$e)*
+acts: Johnny Pesto (Johnny), a Canadian national, charged Atty. Marcelito M. Millo with
conduct unbecoming an ofcer o the Court, misleading his client, bungling the transer o
title, and incometence and negligence in the erormance o his duty as a lawyer.
!n May "##$, his wie Abella Pesto (Abella) retained the ser%ices o Atty. Millo to
handle the transer o title o%er a arcel o land to her name, and the adotion o her niece,
Ar%i Jane &i'on. Johnny and Abella ga%e to Atty. Millo the amounts o P ",$$$.$$ or the
transer o title and P"$,$$$.$$ or the adotion case. Atty. Millo thereater reeatedly ga%e
them alse inormation and numerous ecuses to elain his inability to comlete the
transer
aid wayobac*
titleinand made
"##", butthem
they belie%e that
ound out the their
uon caital gains
return tota
theor the roerty
country had "##
in +ebruary been
that he had not yet aid the ta. -hen they conronted him, Atty. Millo insisted that he had
already aid the same, but he could not roduce any receit or the suosed ayment. Atty.
Millo then urther romised in writing to assume the liability or the accrued enalties.
aserated by Atty. Millo/s neglect and inetitude, Johnny brought this
administrati%e comlaint in the !ntegrated 0ar o the Philiines (!0P). 1n 1ctober "", 2$$",
the !0P3C0&, through Commissioner 4ictoria 5on'ale'3&e los 6eyes, deemed the case
submitted or resolution. 1n 1ctober , 2$"$, !n%estigating Commissioner 4ictor C.
+ernande', to whom the case had been meanwhile transerred, submitted a reort and
recommendation, whereby he ound Atty. Millo liable or %iolating Canon "7 o the Code o
Proessional 6esonsibility, and recommended his susension rom the ractice o law or si
months.
R#li$g %ery attorney owes 8delity to the causes and concerns o his clients. 9e must be
e%er mindul o the trust and con8dence reosed in him by the clients. 9is duty to saeguard
the clients/ interests commences rom his engagement as such, and lasts until his eecti%e
release by the clients. !n that time, he is eected to ta*e e%ery reasonable ste and
eercise ordinary care as his clients/ interests may re;uire.
-ithout
diligence. 6ule doubt,
"7.$<, Atty.
CanonMillo
"7had
o the
the obligation to ser%e his clients
Code o Proessional with cometence
6esonsibility, eresslyand
so
demanded o him, to wit:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 – A lawye !"all #$% #e&le'% a le&al (a%%e e#%u!%e) %$ "*(+ a#) "*! #e&l*&e#'e
*# '$##e'%*$# %"eew*%" !"all e#)e "*( l*a,le.
Atty. Millo claimed that his belated resonse to the charge was due to the assurances o
Abella that she would be withdrawing the comlaint. =he Court disbelie%es him, howe%er,
and treats his claim as nothing but a belated attemt to sa%e the day or himsel. 9e ought
to remember that the withdrawal o an administrati%e charge or susension or disbarment
based on an attorney/s roessional misconduct or negligence will not urnish a ground to
dismiss the charge. >usension or disbarment roceedings that are warranted will still
roceed regardless o the lac* or loss o interest on the art o the comlainant. =he Court
may e%en entirely ignore the withdrawal o the comlaint, and continue to in%estigate in
order to 8nally determine whether the charge o roessional negligence or misconduct was
borne out by the record. =his aroach besea*s the Court/s consistent %iew that the ?egal
Proession is not only a loty and noble calling, but also a rare ri%ilege reser%ed only or the
deser%ing.
Atty.
scheduled Millo made
hearings his had
the !0P situation e%en
set or worse by9is
his bene8t. consistently absenting
disregard o the !0P/shimsel rom the
orders re;uiring
his attendance in the hearings was not only irresonsible, but also constituted utter
disresect or the Judiciary and his ellow lawyers. >uch conduct was absolutely unbecoming
o a lawyer, because lawyers are articularly called uon to obey Court orders and rocesses
and are eected to stand oremost in comlying with orders rom the duly constituted
authorities
=he recommended enalty is not well ta*en. -e modiy the enalty, because Atty.
Millo dislayed no remorse as to his misconduct, and could not be gi%en a sot treatment.
9is roessional misconduct warranted a longer susension rom the ractice o law because
he had caused material re@udice to the clients/ interest. 9e should somehow be taught to
be more ethical and roessional in dealing with trusting clients li*e Johnny and Abella, who
were innocently too willing to reose their utmost trust in his abilities as a lawyer and in his
trustworthiness as a legal roessional. 9e should remember that misconduct has no lace in
the heart and mind o a lawyer who has ta*en the solemn oath to delay no man or money
or malice, and to conduct himsel as a lawyer according to the best o his *nowledge and
discretion. nder the circumstances, susension rom the ractice o law or si months is