FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed against Atty. Marcelo C. Millo (respondent) by complainant Larry C. Sevilla (complainant) before the Office of the Bar Confidant. The complainant accused the respondent of harassment, misconduct, obstruction of justice, and ignorance of the law. The complainant is the publisher of Pampango Footprints (Pampango), a provincial newspaper circulated in Tarlac Province. In April 2014, the complainant issued a statement of account to Spouses Avelino and Melendrina Manalo (Sps. Manalo) for the publication of a notice of auction sale related to their petition for foreclosure of mortgage. Respondent, as Sps. Manalo's counsel, deemed the publication fee as "exorbitant and shocking" and refused to settle the account. He threatened to petition for the disqualification of Pampango and wrote a letter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Tarlac City to further this threat. Complainant filed the administrative complaint against respondent. During the case's pendency, Sps. Manalo negotiated for a 50% discount, but respondent intervened and forbade his clients from paying. When complainant called respondent to discuss the matter, respondent shouted at him and abruptly ended the call. Respondent denied administrative liability and claimed that he acted on behalf of his clients and after the Executive Judge suggested settling, he withdrew as Sps. Manalo's counsel. The investigatory bodies found respondent administratively liable for violating Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and recommended a penalty of reprimand or one-month suspension. The Court affirmed this finding but modified the recommended penalty to a one-month suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.

RULING:

1. Yes, respondent should be administratively sanctioned. The court affirms the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors that respondent fell short of his duties as an officer of the court. Respondent's refusal to settle the publication fee and his obstruction of the settlement process violated Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, the foreclosure proceedings were not completed. The court imposes a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and are expected to serve them with competence and diligence. Lawyers are entitled to employ every honorable means to defend their clients' cause and secure what is due to them. However, professional rules set limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications.

• Lawyers shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. They should encourage their clients to avoid, end, or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

• Lawyers have a duty to initiate the settlement of disputes and negotiate diligently. They should not obstruct or prevent the settlement process.

• Violation of professional rules and misconduct by lawyers can result in administrative sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law.

• Membership in the legal profession is a privilege that comes with conditions. Lawyers are required to observe the law and be mindful of their actions, whether acting in a public or private capacity. Any transgression of this duty could diminish the lawyer's reputation and erode public trust in the legal profession. The court will not hesitate to impose necessary penalties on lawyers whose conduct falls short of the expected standards.