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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Atty. Delante filed a complaint against the spouses with CFI of Tagum, Davao.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Complainants filed a complaint charging respondent with gross violation of the CPR.
 12. 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.

ISSUE: WON respondent committed grave violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he bought the property of his clients without their knowledge, consent and against their
will. YES
RULING:
1. YES
2. The court is not impressed with Atty’ Delante’s defenses. Angalan and complainants
went to respondent’s office not to seek advice about borrowing money but to engage his
services for the purpose of recovering their property.
3. First, after Angalan and complainants went to respondent’s office respondent filed a
complaint with the CFI praying that the Spouses Eustaquio reconvey the property to
Angalan and complainants.
4. Second, in the complaint, the respondent stated that ”by reason of unwarranted refusal
on the part of the defendants to reconvey the property to plaintiffs, the latter have been
constrained to engage, and in fact have engaged, the services of counsel.”
5. Third, respondent issued a receipt to complainants stating that he “RECEIVED from Mr.
MACARIO CAPUL and FRANCISCA CAPUL the sum of Php 1,200” representing full
payment of professional services in regard to the recovery of Original Certificate of Title
in the name of Angalan
6. Fourth, in respondent’s letter dated January 1979 and addressed to the barrio captain of
Umbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, he stated that he was the lawyer of complainants.

As to his claim regarding his former client purchasing the property:

There was a amicable settlement
The lawyer stated that complainants repurchased the property from the Spouses Eustaquio.
In sufficient proof – respondent did not give any detail or proof to substantiate his story.

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. Complaiannats engaged the services of respondent in the hope that we 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. Violations 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.
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
The court finds Attt. Leonido C. Delante GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the CPR. The
court disbars him from practice of law and order that his name be stricken from the roll of attys.