A.C. No.
1558 March 10, 2003
HONORIO MANALANG and FLORENCIO CIRILLO, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES,1 respondent.
FACTS:
In this administrative complaint filed against Atty. Francisco F. Angeles for grave
misconduct as a lawyer, respondent stands charged with infidelity in the discharge
of fiduciary obligations to his clients, herein complainants Honorio Manalang and
Florencio Cirillo.
Manalang and Cirillo alleged that they were the complainants in a case for overtime
and separation pay filed against their employer, the Philippine Racing Club
Restaurant, before the National Labor Relations Commission Region IV Office,
docketed as NLRC-RO 4 No. 4-2417-74. Respondent was their counsel. Judgment
was rendered in their favor, in the amount of P6,500. After the decision became
final, a writ of execution issued. However, without authority from his clients,
respondent compromised the award and was able to collect P5,500 only.
Complainants said they made several demands upon respondent to turn over to them
the amount collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of thirty percent (30%),
but Atty. Angeles refused and offered to give them only the sum of P2,650.
In his answer, respondent stated that he offered to give complainants their money,
but they insisted that he "deduct from this attorney's fees the amount of P2,000,
representing the amount discounted by the counsel of the Philippine Racing Club
Restaurant, together with sheriff legal fees and other administrative
expenses." Respondent claimed that to accept complainants' proposition meant that
he "would not be compensated for prosecuting and handling, the case."
OSG and Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP:
Respondent failed to appear despite due notice on multiple instances. The case was
submitted for resolution on the basis of the existing evidence.
IBP issued a resolution recommending that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years.
ISSUE:
WON respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles should be suspended from the practice
of law because of grave misconduct related to his clients' funds? (YES)
RULING:
Yes, respondent is liable for grave misconduct for withholding his clients’ funds.
A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession. In the instant case, the records clearly and abundantly point to
respondent's receipt of and failure to deliver upon demand, the amount of P4,550
intended for his clients. This is a clear breach of Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
There is no dispute that complainants were awarded P6,500.00 in NLRC-RO 4 No.
4-2417-74 for unpaid overtime and separation pay. Of this amount, thirty percent
(30%) or P1,950 was agreed to be paid to respondent as his attorney's fees. In other
words, complainants were to receive from respondent the net sum of P4,550 or
P2,275 each. Alleging difficulties in collecting the full amount awarded, respondent
compromised the award on execution and collected only P5,500 from the losing
party in NLRC-RO 4 No. 4-2417-74. This compromise was allegedly without
authority from his clients. The authority to compromise cannot be lightly presumed
and must be supported by evidence. In the instant case, respondent failed to show
such authority.
Money claims due to workers cannot, as a rule, be the object of settlement or
compromise effected by counsel without the consent of the workers concerned. A
client has every right to expect from his counsel that nothing will be taken or
withheld from him, save by the rules of law validly applied. By compromising the
judgment without the consent of his clients, respondent not only went against the
stream of judicial dicta, he also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest
of his clients as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights.
In so doing, he violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In the instant case, his act of holding on to his clients' money without their
acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. He was
clinging to something which was not his, and to which he had no right. He appears
oblivious of the admonition that a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from
any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
This is contrary to all ethical principles that members of the bar are supposed to
uphold. Thus, we find no hesitance in imposing on respondent the penalty of
suspension. However, this is the first case on record against him, a fact which could
be taken into account by way of mitigation. Considering further the amount
involved, the penalty of six (6) months suspension appears to us in order.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby SUSPENDS Atty. Francisco F. Angeles from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective immediately upon his
receipt of this Resolution. He is also ordered to pay the sum of two thousand two
hundred seventy five pesos (P2,275.00) each to complainants Honorio Manalang
and Florencio Cirillo, with interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of
filing this complaint until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
ADDITIONAL:
Canon 17: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his clients. He shall also have a lien to the same extent
on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court.
