Angalan vs.

Delante
A.C. NO. 7181
February 6, 2009

FACTS:
- In april 1971, herein complainants mortgaged 8.102 hectares of their property to the
Eustaquio spouses in consideration of a loan in the amount of P15,000. The Eustaqios
prepared a document and sked the complainants to sign it; but because complainants were
illiterates, they a xed their marks instead.
- It turned out that the document was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage.
Hence, TCT No. 9926 was issued in the name of Navarro Eustaquio.
- Complainants engaged the services of respondent Atty. Leonido Delante in November 1970
as shown in the receipt by respondent of P12,000 representing full payment of his
professional fees from the complainants.
- Thereafter, an amicable settlement was entered into between complainants and the
Eustaquios which stipulated that the complainants would repurchase the lot at P30,000. But
since the complainants did not have the money, Atty. Delante advanced the money to
complainants, possessed the property and gathered its produce.
- When the complainants tried to repay the money and recover the property, Atty. Delante
refused. Complainants learned that Delante transferred the title of the property to his name
as evidenced by TCT No. T-57932.
- On April 30, 204, complainants led with the RTC of Davao a complaint for (1) nulli cation of
the deed of absolute sale, and (2) nulli cation of TCT No. T-57932; and on December 28,
2005 charged respondent with gross violation of the Code Professional Responsibilty. In
April 2007, complainants led with the Court a motion to withdraw the complaint for
disbarment and an a davit of desistance.

ISSUES:
- WON the respondent committed grave violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he bought the property of his clients without their consent and against their will.

RULING:
- AFFIRMATIVE
- A motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an a davit of desistance 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. 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 con dence reposed in them.
Respondent should have been mindful of the trust and con dence complainants reposed in
him.
- Considering the depravity of respondent’s o ense, the Court nds the recommended penalty
too light. A person who takes the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is
incapable of telling the truth is un t to be a lawyer.
- The Court nds 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.
fi
ffi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi