G.R. No. A.C. No. 7181. February 6, 2009.
MARIA ANGALAN, NENA ANGALAN, DIONICIO ANGALAN, MAGDALENA ANGALAN, FRANCISCA ANGALAN, INIS ANGALAN, ROSALINO ANGALAN, AND JOSEFINA ANGALAN, ALL HEIRS OF ANGALAN SAMAL married to SANAAN SAMAL, Complainants, vs. ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, illiterate heirs of Angalan Samal, owned a 9.102-hectare land covered by OCT No. P-11499. On April 15, 1971, they borrowed ₱15,000 from the Spouses Eustaquio, mortgaging 8.102 hectares and surrendering the OCT. The spouses prepared a document, which complainants thumb-marked, believing it was a mortgage. Later, they discovered it was a deed of absolute sale, and Navarro Eustaquio had transferred the title to his name (TCT No. T-9926). Complainants engaged respondent Atty. Leonido C. Delante to recover the property, paying him ₱1,200 as full professional fees per a receipt dated November 18, 1970. Respondent filed a complaint in 1976, alleging the complainants’ right to repurchase under the Public Land Law. The parties entered into an amicable settlement dated September 3, 1977, approved by the court, requiring complainants to pay ₱30,000 to repurchase the property. Complainants lacked funds, so respondent advanced the ₱30,000, and in return, complainants allowed him to possess the property and gather its produce until repaid. In a letter dated January 10, 1979, respondent informed the barrio captain that he had redeemed the property for the heirs and authorized Macario Capul to take possession. When complainants later tried to repay the ₱30,000 and recover the property, respondent refused. They learned respondent had transferred the title to his name (TCT No. T-57932). Complainants filed a civil case in 2004 to annul the deeds and recover the property. They also filed a disbarment complaint on December 28, 2005, for gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. During the IBP investigation, complainants filed a motion to withdraw the complaint and an affidavit of desistance, and jointly moved for the dismissal of the civil case. Respondent claimed in his answer and position paper that he never represented complainants in an annulment case, that a client from New York bought the property from the Spouses Eustaquio, and that he later registered it in his name upon the client’s instruction.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Leonido C. Delante committed a gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by acquiring his clients’ property without their knowledge, consent, and against their will.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The evidence, including the receipt for professional fees, the complaint he filed for the complainants, the amicable settlement, and his letter to the barrio captain, conclusively established an attorney-client relationship. Respondent’s claim that he did not represent them and that a foreign client bought the property was deemed a fabrication. By advancing the repurchase price and then taking title to the property in his own name, respondent took advantage of his clients’ illiteracy and financial distress for his own benefit. This act constituted gross misconduct, betrayal of client trust, and a violation of the lawyer’s duty to hold in trust client funds and property. The Court emphasized that a lawyer who exploits a client’s plight to acquire their property undermines public confidence in the legal profession. Accordingly, the Court disbarred Atty. Leonido C. Delante and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.