A.C. No. 10697 - Sevilla vs. Millo

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10697)

Pertinent Dates and Procedural Milestones

Complaint filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant on November 14, 2014 (initial filing before Office of the Court Administrator on October 24, 2014, received by the Bar Confidant on October 28, 2014). The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on July 4, 2016. The Investigating Commissioner reported on May 4, 2017; the IBP Board of Governors acted by resolution on February 22, 2018. The Supreme Court issued the challenged decision on March 25, 2019.

Factual Narrative

Sevilla issued a bill of ₱33,120.00 to the Manalos for publication of a foreclosure auction notice. The Manalos’ counsel, respondent Millo, considered the fee “exorbitant and shocking,” refused payment, threatened to seek disqualification of Pampango, and sent an undated letter to the Executive Judge of the RTC, Tarlac City. The Manalos negotiated a 50% discount with Sevilla, but respondent intervened and prohibited his clients from paying. When Sevilla called respondent to resolve the matter, respondent allegedly shouted and terminated the call. Sevilla also alleged non-issuance of an affidavit of publication and non-submission of printed issues, which prevented completion of the foreclosure proceedings. Respondent denied administrative liability, asserting he acted on his clients’ behalf, that he purportedly withdrew as counsel after the Executive Judge advised settlement, and that the complainant’s alleged failures impeded foreclosure.

IBP Investigation and Recommendations

The Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for violating Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the CPR, characterizing the episode as a misunderstanding over collection that respondent exacerbated by preventing settlement. The Commissioner recommended either a reprimand or one-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigator’s findings but modified the recommended sanction downward to a mere reprimand.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether respondent Atty. Marcelo C. Millo should be administratively sanctioned for harassment, misconduct, obstruction of justice, and ignorance of the law arising from his handling of the publication-fee dispute and his interference with proposed settlement.

Legal Standards Applied

Under the 1987 Constitution and the CPR, lawyers must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for legal processes (Canon 1). Rule 1.04 specifically requires a lawyer to encourage clients to avoid, end, or settle a controversy if a fair settlement is possible. Professional zeal is permitted, but it is constrained by duties of fidelity, competence, diligence, and by ethical limitations placed on conduct that prejudices clients or interferes with legal proceedings.

Court’s Findings of Misconduct

The Court concurred with the IBP’s factual findings: respondent did not take reasonable steps to negotiate the disputed publication fee, instead referring the matter to the Executive Judge and actively preventing his clients from paying the agreed reduced fee. Respondent’s alleged withdrawal as counsel was inconsistent with his conduct in forbidding payment, and his reported conduct (shouting and ignoring the complainant) evidenced a failure to encourage settlement. Those acts violated Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the CPR and resulted in prejudice to the clients by causing non-completion of the foreclosure proceedings (the complainant did not issue the affidavit of publication nor submit printed copies).

Penalty and Rationale

Considering the nature of the violation, the resulting injury or potential injury to the clients, and precedent concerning similar breaches of Rule 1.04 and Canon 1, the Court imposed suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month. Although this was respondent’s first offense, the suspension was deemed appropriate because respondent’s conduct interfered with a legal proceeding and harmed his clients’ interests. The Court referenced prior decisions treating similar violations as warranting suspension and emphasized that s

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10697)

Title, Citation and Court

Case citation: 850 Phil. 319, Second Division; A.C. No. 10697; Decision dated March 25, 2019.
Parties: Larry C. Sevilla (complainant) v. Atty. Marcelo C. Millo (respondent).
Decision authored by Justice Perlas-Bernabe; concurred in by Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.
Administrative complaint originally filed November 14, 2014 (dated November 12, 2014 in the rollo) and initially filed before the Office of the Court Administrator on October 24, 2014, later received by the Office of the Bar Confidant on October 28, 2014.

Nature of the Case and Causes of Action

Administrative complaint against a lawyer for alleged harassment, misconduct, obstruction of justice, and ignorance of the law.
The complaint arose from a dispute over publication fees for a notice of auction sale published in a provincial newspaper and the respondent’s conduct in relation thereto.

Factual Background

Complainant Larry C. Sevilla is the publisher of "Pampango Footprints," a provincial newspaper circulated in Tarlac Province.
In April 2014, complainant issued a statement of account in the amount of P33,120.00 to Spouses Avelino and Melendrina Manalo (Sps. Manalo) for the publication of a notice of auction sale relative to Sps. Manalo’s petition for foreclosure of mortgage, published in three consecutive issues of Pampango.
The respondent, as counsel for Sps. Manalo, objected to the fee, describing it as "exorbitant and shocking," and refused to settle the account.
Respondent threatened complainant that he would petition for the disqualification of Pampango, and wrote an undated letter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City in furtherance of that threat.
While the administrative complaint was pending, Sps. Manalo negotiated a 50% discount with complainant, to which complainant agreed.
Respondent intervened and forbade his clients from paying the agreed reduced fee.
When complainant called respondent to resolve the matter, respondent allegedly shouted, "I am busy I don't want to talk to you!" and banged his cellphone.
As a consequence of the dispute and complainant’s non-issuance of an affidavit of publication and non-submission of copies of the issues where the notice was printed, the foreclosure proceedings did not reach completion.

Respondent’s Assertions and Defense

Respondent denied administrative liability and averred he acted on behalf of his clients, who found the publication fee "exorbitant and shocking."
He claimed that after the Executive Judge advised the parties to settle the matter with complainant, he withdrew as counsel for Sps. Manalo to allow settlement.
He contended that complainant’s failure to issue an affidavit of publication and to submit copies of the relevant newspaper issues caused the non-completion of the foreclosure proceedings.

Initial Procedural Steps and Referral

The Court, in a Resolution dated July 4, 2016, referred the administrative complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner assigned was Narciso A. Tadeo; the Report was dated May 4, 2017.
The IBP Board of Governors considered the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and issued a Board Resolution dated February 22, 2018 adopting the Report with modification as to penalty.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendation

The Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for violating Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Rule 1.04 was identified as: "A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement."
The Investigating Commissioner characterized the matter as essentially a misunderstanding in the collection of publication fees which could have been easily settled if respondent had not prevented the settlement.
The Report noted that Sps. Manalo had successfully negotia