Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CELESTIAL - Angalan v. Delante
CELESTIAL - Angalan v. Delante
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.
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
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.
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."
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.