View full case

MARIA ANGALAN v. ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE

FACTS:

The complainants, who are illiterate members of the Samal Tribe, owned a 9.102-hectare parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-11499. They borrowed P15,000 from the Spouses Eustaquio and mortgaged 8.102 hectares of their property as security. However, the document they signed turned out to be a deed of absolute sale instead of a mortgage. The Spouses Eustaquio transferred the title to the property to Navarro's name, and OCT No. P-11499 was canceled and replaced with Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-9926. The complainants engaged the services of Atty. Delante and filed a complaint stating that they sold the property to the defendants but had the right to repurchase it within five years. An amicable settlement was reached, where the plaintiffs would pay P30,000 and authorize the defendants to collect the same from the Clerk of Court, in exchange for a deed of reconveyance. The remaining P15,000 would be paid later. However, when the complainants tried to repay the P30,000 and recover the property, Atty. Delante refused and transferred the title to his name, canceling TCT No. T-9926 and issuing TCT No. T-57932 in his own name. The complainants filed a complaint to cancel the deed of sale and seek a new title in their favor. In response, the respondent claimed that the transfer of the property was legally executed through a deed of sale and denied the allegations against him. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, but both parties later filed motions for the dismissal of the case and withdrawal of the complaint.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent committed a grave violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by buying the property of his clients without their knowledge, consent, and against their will.

  2. Whether Atty. Leonido C. Delante violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Whether the recommended penalty of suspension by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is too light.

RULING:

  1. The Court sustains the findings of the IBP. After a careful review of the records, the Court gives credence to the complainants' version of the facts. Respondent's credibility is highly questionable. The Court finds that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by transferring the title over the property to his name instead of returning it to his clients. Consequently, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one year.

  2. The Court found Atty. Leonido C. Delante guilty of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court disbarred him from the practice of law and ordered the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court deemed the recommended penalty of suspension by the IBP as too light considering the gravity of respondent's offense. The Court held that a lawyer who takes advantage of his client's financial plight and acquires the client's properties for his own benefit destroys the public's confidence in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Thus, expulsion from the legal profession was the appropriate penalty in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have a duty of fidelity and loyalty to their clients and must act in their best interests. They should not take advantage of their position to benefit themselves at the expense of their clients.

  • Lawyers must be truthful and honest in their dealings with clients and should not make false statements or misrepresentations.

  • Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility may result in disciplinary action against lawyers, such as suspension from the practice of law.

  • Lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their possession. (Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • Lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • 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. (Section 5, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court)

  • Violation of Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility constitutes gross misconduct and may result in disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

  • A lawyer who takes advantage of his client's financial plight and acquires the client's properties for his own benefit is destructive of the public's trust in the legal profession.

  • The need to maintain high standards in the legal profession and preserve the faith of the public in lawyers justifies the imposition of the ultimate penalty of disbarment.