Scribd
Upload
114 views1 page

Manalang Vs Angeles

Honorio Manalang and Florencio Cirillo filed an administrative complaint against lawyer Francisco Angeles for grave misconduct. Manalang and Cirillo were clients of Angeles in a labor case where they were awarded P6,500. Without authorization, Angeles compromised the award for P5,500. When Manalang and Cirillo demanded their share minus 30% legal fees, Angeles only offered P2,650 each. The Supreme Court found Angeles failed to properly account for and deliver the full amount to his clients. Angeles was suspended from practice for 6 months and ordered to pay P2,275 to each complainant.

Uploaded by

Tine Tine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
114 views1 page

Manalang Vs Angeles

Honorio Manalang and Florencio Cirillo filed an administrative complaint against lawyer Francisco Angeles for grave misconduct. Manalang and Cirillo were clients of Angeles in a labor case where they were awarded P6,500. Without authorization, Angeles compromised the award for P5,500. When Manalang and Cirillo demanded their share minus 30% legal fees, Angeles only offered P2,650 each. The Supreme Court found Angeles failed to properly account for and deliver the full amount to his clients. Angeles was suspended from practice for 6 months and ordered to pay P2,275 to each complainant.

Uploaded by

Tine Tine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Manalang vs. Angeles [A.C. No.

1558, March 10, 2003]

Facts: In this administrative complaint filed on November 11, 1975, 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.

Complainants then instituted the instant case, with the assistance of the then Citizens Legal
Assistance Office (CLAO) of the Department of Justice.

In his answer, filed on December 15, 1975, 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."

Issue: Whether or not respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles should be suspended from the
practice of law because of grave misconduct related to his clients' funds

Held: YES. As found by the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, respondent only offered to remit
to complainants the amount of P2,650 or P1,325 each, an amount substantially less than the
P2,275 that each complainant was entitled to receive under the judgment. On this score,
respondent failed to establish any credible defense. Moreover, he consistently failed to appear
at the hearings scheduled by the CBD. Hence, his excuse for failing to give the money due his
clients merit scant consideration.

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.

Atty. Francisco F. Angeles is suspended 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.

You might also like