AC 1558; (March, 2003) (Digest)
A.C. No. 1558; March 10, 2003
Honorio Manalang and Florencio Cirillo, complainants, vs. Atty. Francisco F. Angeles, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Honorio Manalang and Florencio Cirillo engaged respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles as counsel in a labor case against their employer. The National Labor Relations Commission rendered a final judgment awarding them P6,500. After a writ of execution issued, respondent, without his clients’ authority, compromised the award and collected only P5,500 from the employer. Complainants demanded that respondent turn over the collected amount minus the agreed 30% attorney’s fees (P1,950), leaving a net balance of P4,550 due to them. Respondent refused and offered them only P2,650.
The case was referred for investigation. Complainants testified, but respondent appeared only sporadically. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline found respondent failed to present evidence despite opportunities and recommended a two-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors approved.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles should be suspended from the practice of law for grave misconduct involving his clients’ funds.
RULING
Yes, respondent is suspended for two years. The core of a lawyer’s duty is fidelity to the client’s cause and the faithful handling of client funds. Here, respondent unilaterally compromised the final money judgment without his clients’ consent. Money claims of workers cannot be compromised by counsel alone. This act violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer’s fidelity to the client’s cause.
Furthermore, respondent failed to deliver the full amount rightfully belonging to his clients upon demand. He collected P5,500, from which the agreed P1,950 attorney’s fees should be deducted, leaving P4,550 for complainants. His offer of only P2,650 was a clear deficiency. His claim of additional deductions for sheriff’s fees and expenses was unsubstantiated and contrary to the rule that a lawyer’s lien must be properly asserted and the client notified. His failure to account for and deliver the funds violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.03, which require a lawyer to hold client funds in trust and deliver them upon demand. His consistent non-appearance at hearings further demonstrated a disregard for the proceedings. This misconduct warranted the two-year suspension to uphold the standards of the legal profession.