Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CELESTIAL - Angalan v. Delante

    Uploaded by

    Apr Celestial
    77 views2 pages
    First, eight heirs of Angalan Samal hired attorney Leonido Delante to recover land that was fraudulently transferred, paying him fees. However, Delante later acquired title to the land for himself without the heirs' consent. The Supreme Court found Delante violated professional ethics by not holding the land in trust and taking advantage of his illiterate clients. As a result, Delante was disbarred from practicing law.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CELESTIAL_ Angalan v. Delante

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    First, eight heirs of Angalan Samal hired attorney Leonido Delante to recover land that was fraudulently transferred, paying him fees. However, Delante later acquired title to the land for himself without the heirs' consent. The Supreme Court found Delante violated professional ethics by not holding the land in trust and taking advantage of his illiterate clients. As a result, Delante was disbarred from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    CELESTIAL - Angalan v. Delante

    Uploaded by

    Apr Celestial
    First, eight heirs of Angalan Samal hired attorney Leonido Delante to recover land that was fraudulently transferred, paying him fees. However, Delante later acquired title to the land for himself without the heirs' consent. The Supreme Court found Delante violated professional ethics by not holding the land in trust and taking advantage of his illiterate clients. As a result, Delante was disbarred from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Angalan v.

    Delante 578 SCRA 113 (2009)

    This is a complaint filed by Maria, Nena, Dionicio, Magdalena, Francisca, Inis,


    Rosalino, and Josefina Angalan (complainants) against Atty. Leonido C. Delante
    (respondent) for gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Complainants are the heirs of Angalan Samal (Angalan). They allege that they are
    illiterate and belong to the Samal Tribe and the rightful owners of a 9.102-hectare
    parcel of land in Davao del Norte with an Original Certificate of Title.

    In 1971, Angalan and complainants borrowed P15,000 from Navarro R. Eustaquio


    and Arabella P. Eustaquio (Spouses Eustaquio). To secure the loan, Angalan and
    complainants mortgaged part of the subject property. The Spouses Eustaquio
    prepared a document wherein the complainants affixed their thumb marks.

    When complainants tried to pay and recover the subject property, they learned that
    the document was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. They also
    learned that Navarro R. Eustaquio (Navarro) had transferred the title of said
    property to his name. ω lιbrαrÿ

    Complainants engaged the services of Atty Delante to recover said property. In a


    receipt dated November 1970, respondent acknowledged receipt of P1,200 from
    complainants for professional fees. Atty Delante then filed a complaint before the
    RTC on behalf of complainants.

    An amicable settlement was subsequently agreed upon between the parties, where
    Angalan will repurchase the property for P30,000. Because Angalan did not have the
    money at that time, Atty Delante advanced said sum. In exchange, complainants
    allowed Atty Delante to possess the property and gather its produce until he is paid.

    When complainants tried to repay Atty Delante, he refused. They then learned that
    l

    the attorney had transferred the title of the property to his name, cancelling
    previous titles. Complainants thus charged respondent with gross violation of the
    Code of Professional Responsibility.

    In his answer, Atty Delante claimed that a client from New York was the one who
    bought the property from the Spouses Eustaquio, with the intention of building a
    rest house. However, after 11 years, this New York client decided not to come back
    anymore to the Philippines, and directed Atty Delante to register the Deed of
    Sale over the property to his (Atty Delante’s) name and directed the him to refund
    the money. He also said that the complainants never engaged his services but only
    sought his advice on the property.

    In a Report dated 15 October 2007, Commissioner Hababag found that respondent


    violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors
    concurred and recommended a one year suspension.

    ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed grave violation of [the] Code of


    Professional Responsibility when he bought the property of his client[s] without their
    knowledge, consent and against their will.

    RULING – YES
    First, the receipt issued in November 1970 for professional fees, followed by the
    case filed by Atty Delante on behalf of the complainants clearly show that Atty
    Delante was indeed engaged as their counsel.

    Second, the amicable settlement entered between Angalan and the spouses
    Eustaquio, as evidenced by a court decision approving the same, belies Atty
    Delante’s claim that a client from New York bought said property for the spouses
    Eustaquio. Furthermore, in his letter to the barrio captain, respondent himself stated
    that complainants repurchased the property from the Spouses Eustaquio. Atty
    Delante also did not give any detail or proof to substantiate existence of the New
    York client, no name or any form of correspondence between him and the alleged
    client were presented.

    Third, in his position paper, respondent alleged that complainants executed a motion
    to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance. This is
    immaterial. Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court 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 Code of Professional Responsibility.


    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. 24 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 respondent's offense, the Court finds the recommended
    penalty too light. Violation of Canons 16 and 17 constitutes gross misconduct. It
    bears reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his client's financial plight to
    acquire the latter's properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of
    the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.

    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.

    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.

    You might also like