In the case of MARIA ANGALAN, et. al. vs. ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE, En Banc, A.C. No. 7181 (Per Curiam), February 6, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court disbarred the respondent Atty. Leonido C. Delante for violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them and that that lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their possession.
In this case, the complainants alleged that they were 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.
The Court stated that a person who took the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is incapable of telling the truth is unfit to be a lawyer.
Let me digest the salient parts thereof, for legal research purposes.
Complainants and respondent presented two different sets of facts. According to complainants, they engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of recovering their property from the Spouses Eustaquio. In violation of the trust and confidence they reposed in him, respondent transferred the title over the property to his name. According to respondent, complainants did not engage his services. His client from New York was the one who bought the property from the Spouses Eustaquio.
The Court was not impressed. 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. 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. Second, in the complaint, 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.” Third, respondent issued a receipt to complainants stating that he “RECEIVED from Mr. MACARIO CAPUL and FRANCISCA RAFAEL CAPUL the sum of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) representing full payment of professional services in regard to the recovery of Original Certificate of Title No. P-11499 in the name of Angalan (Samal).” Fourth, in respondent’s letter dated 10 January 1979 and addressed to the barrio captain of Umbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, he stated that he was the lawyer of complainants.
Complainants repurchased the property from the Spouses Eustaquio. First, complainants and the Spouses Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement stating that complainants would repurchase the property from the Spouses Eustaquio. Second, in his letter to the barrio captain, respondent stated that complainants repurchased the property from the Spouses Eustaquio.
Respondent’s story about the client from New York is unbelievable. Respondent did not give any detail or proof to substantiate his story — the name of the alleged client, an affidavit of the alleged client, the old passport of the alleged client showing immigration stamps, or any form of correspondence between him and the alleged client. Respondent’s “vain attempt to salvage his malicious acts was flimsy to gain belief and acceptance.
In his position paper, respondent alleged that complainants executed a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance. This was 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.
Violation 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. In Hernandez v. Go, the Court disbarred a lawyer for transferring the titles over the properties of his client to his name without the knowledge of his client. In Hernandez, the Court held that:
Considering the depravity of respondent’s offense, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP too light. 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. Thus, for violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which constitutes gross misconduct, and consistent with the need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.
