[LEGAL

PROFESSION]
2nd semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

Angalan v. Delante
A.C. No.: 7181
Ponente: Per Curiam
Date: February 6, 2009
Petitioner: Heirs of Angalan Samal married to Sanaan Samal (Maria, Nena, Dionicio, Magdalena, Francisca, Inis, Rosalino and Josefina Angalan)
Respondent: Atty. Leonido Delante
Relief: Administrative case for gross violation of the CPR
FACTS:

Complainants are the heirs of Angalan Samal and Sanaan Samal. They allege that they are illiterate and belong to the Samal Tribe.
They owned a 9.102-hectare parcel of land in Barrio San Jose, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte. The property
was covered by Original Certificate of Tile No. P-11499.
On 1971, Angalan and complainants borrowed P15,000 from spouses Navarro and Arabella Eustaquio. To secure the loan,
complainants mortgaged 8.102 hectares of their property and surrendered the OCT to the spouses. The spouses prepared a document
and asked complainants to sign it. Complainants affixed their thumb marks on the document.
When complainants tried to pay the loan and recover the OCT from the spouses, the spouses refused. Complainants learned that the
document which the spouses prepared, and which they signed, was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. They also
learned that Navarro had transferred the title over the property to his name.
Complainants engaged the services of Atty. Delante for the purpose of recovering their property. Respondent acknowledged the receipt
of P1,200 from Francisca ANgalan and his husband Macario Capul, representing the full payment of his professional fees.
Atty. Delante filed a complaint against the spouses with CFI of Tagum, Davao.
Complainants and the spouses entered into an amicable settlement wherein the spouses offered the complainants the repurchase of the
property for P30,000. CFI approved the amicable settlement.
Complainants did not have the P30,000 repurchase price for the property. Atty. Delante advanced the P30,000 and, in return,
complainants allowed respondent to possess the property and gather its produce until he is paid.
When complainants tried to repay the P30,000 repurchase price and recover the property from Atty. Delante, the latter refused.
Complainants learned that he transferred the title of the property to his name.
Complainants filed a complaint with RTC of Davao City, praying that the TCT of Atty. Delante be declared void and that he be made to
pay them damaged.
Atty Delante argued that complainants never engaged his service and were only borrowing money from him, and that he bought the
property in question in behalf of his US-based client.
Complainants filed a complaint charging respondent with gross violation of the CPR.
The case was referred to the IBP. Commissioner Hababag found that respondent violated the CPR and recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation with
modification of increasing the suspension from 6 months to 1 year.

ISSUE1:
WON Atty. Delante violated the CPR YES
HELD/RATIO1:
After a careful review of the different versions of facts of complainants and respondents, the Court gave credence to complainants version.
Respondents credibility is highly questionable. Angalan and complainants went to respondents office not to seek advice about borrowing money
but to engage his services for the purpose of recovering their property.
The facts clearly show that complainants engaged the services of respondent.
- after complainants went to respondents office, respondent filed a complaint with CFI praying that the spouses reconvey the property to
complainants
- respondent stated in the complaint that by reason of unwarranted refusal on the part of the spouses to reconvey the property to the
complainants, the latter have been constrained to engage, and in fact have engaged, the services of a counsel
- respondent issued a receipt of the P1,200 professional fee
- in respondents letter addressed to the barrio captaion of Umbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, he stated that he was the lawyer of
complainants
It is also obvious from the facts that respondents story about his US-based client being the one who bought the property in question was only a
vain attempt to salvage his malicious acts too flimsy to gain belief and acceptance.

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee

[LEGAL
PROFESSION]
2nd semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

It is also immaterial WON the complainants executed a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance. Sec. 5, Rule
139-B of ROC states that, No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawal of charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.
Respondent violated Canons 16 and 17 of the CPR. Canon 16 states that lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may
come into their possession. Respondent should have held in trust TCT No. T-9926 and returned the property to complainants upon demand.
Instead of holding in trust the property of complainants, respondent (1) transferred the title of the property to his name, (2) refused to return the
property to complainants, and (3) referred to complainants charges as malicious and untruthful.
Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Respondent should have been mindful of the trust
and confidence complainants reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them.
Complainants engaged the services of respondent in the hope that he would help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests of
complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title of the property to his name.
Considering the depravity of respondents offense, the Court finds the recommended penalty too light. Violation of Canons 16 and 17 constitutes
gross misconduct. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Court for gross misconduct. In Hernandez v. Go, the Court disbarred a lawyer for transferring the titles over the properties of his
client to his name without the knowledge of his client.
A person who takes the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is incapable of telling the truth is unfit to be a lawyer.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Leonido C. Delante GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, the Court DISBARS him from the practice of law and ORDERS that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee