Legal Ethics

PESTO VS. MILLO, ADM. CASE NO. 9612, MAR. 13, 213 !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 transer o
title, and incometence and negligence in the erormance o his duty as a lawyer.
!n May "##$, his wie Abella Pesto (Abella) retained the ser%ices o Atty. Millo to
handle the transer o title o%er a arcel o land to her name, and the adotion o her niece,
Ar%i Jane &i'on. Johnny and Abella ga%e to Atty. Millo the amounts o P ",$$$.$$ or the
transer o title and P"$,$$$.$$ or the adotion case. Atty. Millo thereater reeatedly ga%e
them alse inormation and numerous ecuses to elain his inability to comlete the

transer
aid wayobac*
titleinand made
"##", butthem
they belie%e that
ound out the their
uon caital gains
return tota
theor the roerty
country had "##
in +ebruary been
that he had not yet aid the ta. -hen they conronted him, Atty. Millo insisted that he had
already aid the same, but he could not roduce any receit or the suosed ayment. Atty.
Millo then urther romised in writing to assume the liability or the accrued enalties.
aserated by Atty. Millo/s neglect and inetitude, Johnny brought this
administrati%e comlaint in the !ntegrated 0ar o the Philiines (!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 transerred, submitted a reort and
recommendation, whereby he ound Atty. Millo liable or %iolating Canon "7 o the Code o
Proessional 6esonsibility, and recommended his susension 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 mindul o the trust and con8dence reosed in him by the clients. 9is duty to saeguard
the clients/ interests commences rom his engagement as such, and lasts until his eecti%e
release by the clients. !n that time, he is eected to ta*e e%ery reasonable ste and
eercise ordinary care as his clients/ interests may re;uire.

-ithout
diligence. 6ule doubt,
"7.$<, Atty.
CanonMillo
"7had
o the
the obligation to ser%e his clients
Code o Proessional with cometence
6esonsibility, eresslyand
so
demanded o him, to wit:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 – A lawye !"all #$% #e&le'% a le&al (a%%e e#%u!%e) %$ "*(+ a#) "*! #e&l*&e#'e
*# '$##e'%*$# %"eew*%" !"all e#)e "*( l*a,le.

Atty. Millo claimed that his belated resonse to the charge was due to the assurances o
Abella that she would be withdrawing the comlaint. =he Court disbelie%es him, howe%er,
and treats his claim as nothing but a belated attemt to sa%e the day or himsel. 9e ought
to remember that the withdrawal o an administrati%e charge or susension or disbarment
based on an attorney/s roessional misconduct or negligence will not urnish a ground to
dismiss the charge. >usension or disbarment roceedings that are warranted will still
roceed regardless o the lac* or loss o interest on the art o the comlainant. =he Court
may e%en entirely ignore the withdrawal o the comlaint, and continue to in%estigate in
order to 8nally determine whether the charge o roessional negligence or misconduct was
borne out by the record. =his aroach besea*s the Court/s consistent %iew that the ?egal
Proession is not only a loty 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 irresonsible, but also constituted utter
disresect or the Judiciary and his ellow lawyers. >uch conduct was absolutely unbecoming
o a lawyer, because lawyers are articularly called uon to obey Court orders and rocesses
and are eected to stand oremost in comlying with orders rom the duly constituted
authorities
=he recommended enalty is not well ta*en. -e modiy the enalty, because Atty.
Millo dislayed no remorse as to his misconduct, and could not be gi%en a sot treatment.
9is roessional misconduct warranted a longer susension 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 roessional in dealing with trusting clients li*e Johnny and Abella, who
were innocently too willing to reose their utmost trust in his abilities as a lawyer and in his
trustworthiness as a legal roessional. 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, susension rom the ractice o law or si months is

the condign and commensurate enalty or him.