4/18/2017 A.C. No.

7181

ENBANC


MARIAANGALAN, A.C.No.7181
NENAANGALAN, Present:
DIONICIOANGALAN,
MAGDALENAANGALAN, PUNO,C.J.,
FRANCISCAANGALAN, QUISUMBING,
INISANGALAN, YNARESSANTIAGO,
ROSALINOANGALAN,
CARPIO,
ANDJOSEFINAANGALAN,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
ALLOFWHOMAREHEIRS
CORONA,
OFANGALANSAMALmarried
CARPIOMORALES,
toSANAANSAMAL,
AZCUNA,
Complainants,
TINGA,

CHICONAZARIO,

VELASCO,JR.,NACHURA,

LEONARDODECASTRO,

BRION,and
versus
PERALTA,JJ.







Promulgated:
ATTY.LEONIDOC.DELANTE,
February6,2009
Respondent.

xx


DECISION

PERCURIAM:

ThisisacomplaintfiledbyMaria,Nena,Dionicio,Magdalena,Francisca,Inis,Rosalino,andJosefina
Angalan(complainants)againstAtty.LeonidoC.Delante(respondent)forgrossviolationoftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility.


ComplainantsaretheheirsofAngalanSamal(Angalan)andSanaanSamal(Sanaan). Complainants
allege that they are illiterate and belong to the Samal Tribe. Angalan, Sanaan, and complainants

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 1/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181

owned a 9.102hectare parcel of land in Barrio San Jose, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal,
[1]
DavaodelNorte.ThepropertywascoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.P11499.

On 15 April 1971, Angalan and complainants borrowed P15,000 from Navarro R. Eustaquio and
ArabellaP.Eustaquio(SpousesEustaquio).Tosecuretheloan,Angalanandcomplainantsmortgaged
8.102 hectares of the 9.102hectare property and surrendered OCT No. P11499 to the Spouses
[2]
Eustaquio.The Spouses Eustaquio prepared a document and asked Angalan and complainants to
signit.Angalanandcomplainantsaffixedtheirthumbmarksonthedocument.

WhencomplainantstriedtopaytheloanandrecoverOCTNo.P11499fromtheSpousesEustaquio,
theSpousesEustaquiorefused.ComplainantslearnedthatthedocumentwhichtheSpousesEustaquio
prepared,andwhichcomplainantssigned,wasadeedofabsolutesaleandnotarealestatemortgage.
They also learned that Navarro R. Eustaquio (Navarro) had transferred the title over the 8.102
propertytohisnameOCTNo.P11499wascanceledandTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No. T
[3]
9926 inthenameofNavarrowasissued.

Complainants engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of recovering their property. In a
[4]
receipt dated 18 November 1970, respondent acknowledged receipt of P1,200 from Francisca
Angalanandherhusband,MacarioCapul(Capul),representingthefullpaymentofhisprofessional
fees:ReceivedfromMr.MACARIOCAPULandFRANCISCARAFAELCAPULthesumofONE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) representing full payment of professional
services in regard to recovery of Original Certificate of Title No. P11499 in the name of Angalan
(Samal).

[5]
Respondentfiledacomplaint dated13April1976withthethenCourtofFirstInstance(CFI),now
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),JudicialRegionXVI,Tagum,Davaostatingthat:

2. xxxAngalanSamalandhischildrenxxxaretheoriginalpatenteesofacertain
parcelofland,situatedinOmbay,Samal,Davao,coveredunderOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P
11499,oftheRegistryofDeedsofDavao,havingacquiredthesameunderHPNo.65310,pursuant
totheprovisionsoftheHomesteadLawsofthePublicLandLaw(C.A.141)

3.xxx[O]nApril15,1971,thehereinoriginalpatenteesxxxsoldandconveyedsaid
parcel of land covered by the aforesaid title to the herein defendants for the sum of FIFTEEN
THOUSANDPESOS(P15,000.00)xxx

4.xxx[U]ndertheprovisionsofthePublicLandLaw,particularlySection119thereof
andevenonthefaceofthetitleofsaidpropertynowunderthenameofthedefendantsxxxthe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 2/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181
hereinplaintiffshavetherighttorepurchasesaidpropertywithinaperiodoffive(5)yearsfromthe
dateoftheconveyance

xxxx

7.[A]samatterofrightunderthelaw,thehereinplaintiffsareentitledtotheproduceof
thepropertyatleastbeginningApril8,1976

xxxx

9. [B]yreasonofunwarrantedrefusalonthepartofthedefendantstoreconveythe
property to plaintiffs, the latter have been constrained to engage, and in fact have engaged, the
[6]
servicesofcounselxxx



Complainants and the Spouses Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement. In the amicable
[7]
settlement dated3September1977,thepartiesstatedthat:

1. xxx[T]heplaintiffshaveofferedtothedefendant[s]thesumofP30,000.00as
repurchasepricewhichthedefendant[saccept]

2.xxx[U]ponthesigninghereof,theplaintiffsshallpaythedefendant[s]thesumof
P15,000.00andforthispurposeherebyauthorizethedefendantstocollectthesamefromtheClerk
of Court which amount had been deposited with this Honorable Court Likewise, upon signing
hereoftheDeedofReconveyanceshallbeimmediatelyexecutedanddeliveredbythedefendantsto
plaintiff[s]

3. xxx[W]hilethebalanceofP15,000.00hasnotbeenpaid,thedefendant[s]shall
continuetopossess,andifnecessarytogathertheproduceoftheproperty,however,uponreceiptof
the defendant[s] of the balance of P15,000.00, said defendants together with [their] agent and/or
worker,AlfredoRabadonshallcleartheareaandturnoverthesamewithinfifteen(15)daysfrom
[8]
receipt[of]saidbalance.

[9]
InaDecision dated30September1977,theCFIapprovedtheamicablesettlement.

ComplainantsdidnothavetheP30,000repurchasepricefortheproperty.Respondent advanced the
P30,000 and, in return, complainants allowed respondent to possess the property and gather its
[10]
produceuntilheispaid.Inaletter dated10January1979andaddressedtothebarriocaptainof
Umbay,Samal,DavaodelNorte,respondentstatedthat:

This will inform you that the Heirs of Angalan Samal have already redeemed their property
throughmefromMr.NavarroEustaquiosinceSeptember,1978.InmycapacityascounseloftheHeirs
ofAngalanSamalandownerofthemoneyinredeemingtheproperty,IhaveauthorizedMr.Macario
Capoltotakeoverthepossessionofthepropertytogetherwiththeharvestingofthematuredcoconuts.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 3/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181

When complainants tried to repay the P30,000 repurchase price and recover the property from
respondent, respondent refused. Complainants learned that respondent transferred the title of the
[11]
property to his name TCT No. T9926 was canceled and TCT No. T57932 in the name of
respondentwasissued.

[12]
Complainantsfiledacomplaint dated 30 April 2004 with the RTC, Judicial Region XI, Branch
34, Davao City praying that (1) the deed of absolute sale prepared by the Spouses Eustaquio and
signed by the complainants be declared void, (2) TCT No. T57932 be declared void, and (3)
respondent be made to pay damages. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 572004. In his
[13]
answer dated29December2004,respondentstatedthat:

[In] 1971, ANGALAN (SAMAL) [now deceased) [sic] together with his soninlaw, MACARIO
CAPUL,thelatterbeingthetownmateofhereindefendantDelanteinDanao,Cebuandwhoismarried
tothedaughterofthelateANGALAN(SAMAL),cametohereindefendantsofficeandsoughtforan
advicetoborrowmoney

x x x [T]he late ANGALAN (SAMAL) together with his children in company with MACARIO
CAPUL, were directed by herein defendant to inform him why it was necessary for them to borrow
money and for whatever [sic] purpose after their story, herein defendant disagreed as to their
justificationinborrowingmoneywhichwasfornootherpurposeexcepttohavemoneyontheirown

xxxx

Itispreposterousforplaintiff[s]toclaimthattheyhad[sic]engagedtheprofessionalservicesofherein
defendant to file an annulment case since plaintiffs never came back apparently ashamed when they
weredrivenout,butworsetheyhad[sic]neverpaidthehereindefendantasinglecentavoforpurposes
offilinganannulmentcaseagainstcodefendantNAVARROEUSTAQUIO

xxx[T]hetransferofsaidpropertyconsistingof8.102hectaresunderthenameofhereindefendants
was not tainted with any deceit but effected legally by virtue of a valid deed of sale executed by
defendants[sic]spousesEUSTAQUIOinfavorofhereindefendants.
xxxx

[T]he absolute deed of sale, [sic] dated 15 April 1971, executed by herein plaintiffs in favor of
defendantsEUSTAQUIO,speaksforitself.ItisasaleofrealpropertyandNOTamortgage.

xxxx

Contrary to the malicious and untruthful claim of the plaintiffs, the legal services of defendant Atty.
LEONIDODELANTEwasneversolicitedbythem.Plaintiffs only asked defendant from where they
couldborrowmoney,andafterknowingthattheyjustsimplywould[sic]liketoborrowmoneywithout
any concrete investments in mind to repay [sic] back [sic] any loan, defendant Atty. LEONIDO
DELANTEdrovethemoutofhisofficeandtoldthemtolookforanotherpersontohelpthem

DefendantAtty.LEONIDODELANTElaterlearnedfromMACARIOCAPUL,whoisafriendanda
town mate, and who is the husband of FRANCISCA ANGALAN CAPUL, that the plaintiffs had
negotiatedasalewithacertainNAVARROEUSTAQUIOxxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 4/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181
InSeptember1977,aformerFilipinoclientofhereindefendantDELANTE,who,andhisfamily[sic]
arenowpermanentresidentsofNewYork,waslookingforarealpropertytobuildhisretirementhome,
[sic] and he approached herein defendant, in which he was referred to defendant EUSTAQUIO [sic]
Upon visiting the property of defendant EUSTAQUIO, he was so impressed of the location of the
propertyanddecidedtobuythesame,henceleftthemoneytohereindefendantDELANTEandtobuy
[sic]saidpropertyunderdefendantsname,withtheunderstandingtoturnoversaidpropertytohim,as
soonasheandhisfamilyshallhavereturnedtothecountry

xxx[S]incehereindefendantisnotinterestedoverthesaidpropertyashisown,hewaitedforhisclient
fromNewYorktocomehomeandtogethispropertybutafter11years,hisclientdecidednottocome
back anymore to the Philippines, and directed herein defendant to register the Deed of Sale over the
[14]
propertyto[sic]hisnameanddirectedhereindefendanttorefundhisclient.

[15]
Complainantsfiledacomplaint dated28December2005withtheCourtchargingrespondentwith
[16]
grossviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.InaResolution dated3July2006,the
[17]
Courtrequiredrespondenttocommentonthecomplaintand,inaResolution dated4December
2006, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
reportandrecommendation.

In a Notice dated 14 March 2007, Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag (Commissioner Hababag)
directed complainants and respondent to appear before the IBP for a mandatory conference. The
partiesfailedtoappearatthemandatoryconference.InanOrderdated16May2007,Commissioner
Hababagdirectedthepartiestosubmittheirpositionpapers.

Inamotiondated4April2007andfiledwiththeRTC,respondentandcomplainantsprayedthatCivil
Case No. 572004 be dismissed. Complainants filed with the Court a motion to withdraw the
complaintfordisbarmentdated4April2007andanaffidavitofdesistancedatedApril2007.

In his position paper dated 2 July 2007, respondent stated that (1)Angalan and Capul went to his
office in 1971 to seek advice about borrowing money (2) his client from New York bought the
property from the Spouses Eustaquio and (3) complainants executed a motion to withdraw the
complaintfordisbarmentandanaffidavitofdesistance.

InaReportdated15October2007,CommissionerHababagfoundthatrespondentviolatedtheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility:

The issue to resolve is whether or not respondent committed grave violation of [the] Code of
Professional Responsibility when he bought the property of his client[s] without their knowledge,
consentandagainsttheirwill?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 5/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181
Weighingevidencepresentedbybothparties,respondentshouldbepunishedforhisunprofessional
anddistastefulacts.

xxxx

His vainattemptto salvage his malicious acts was too flimsy to gain beliefandacceptance.It is
unbelievable that a buyer would entrust his money intended for payment of a property but
allowedthatsaidpropertyberegisteredunderthenameofanother,specificallyhislawyer,simply
runscountertoordinaryhumannature.(Emphasissupplied)

CommissionerHababagrecommendedthatrespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforsix
months.

InaResolutiondated22November2007,theIBPBoardofGovernors(Board)adoptedandapproved
the Report with modification. The Board increased respondents suspension from six months to one
year.

[18]
PursuanttoSection12(b),Rule139BoftheRulesofCourt, theBoardforwardedthecasetothe
Courtforfinalaction.

TheCourtsustainsthefindingsoftheIBP.

Complainantsandrespondentpresentedtwodifferentsetsoffacts.According to complainants, they
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of recovering their property from the Spouses
Eustaquio.Inviolationofthetrustandconfidencetheyreposedinhim,respondenttransferredthetitle
overthepropertytohisname.Accordingtorespondent,complainantsdidnotengagehisservices.His
clientfromNewYorkwastheonewhoboughtthepropertyfromtheSpousesEustaquio.

Afteracarefulreviewoftherecords,theCourtgivescredencetocomplainantsversionofthefacts.


Respondentscredibilityishighlyquestionable.Inhisanswerdated29December2004andfiledwith
the CFI and in his position paper dated 2 July 2007 and filed with the IBP, respondent alleged that
AngalanandCapulwenttohisofficein1971toseekadviceaboutborrowingmoney. According to
respondent,complainantsdidnotengagehisservices.Inhisanswer,respondentstatedthat:

Itispreposterousfor[complainants]toclaimthattheyhad[sic]engagedtheprofessionalservices
of herein defendant to file an annulment case since [complainants] never came back apparently
ashamedwhentheyweredrivenoutxxx

xxxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 6/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181

Contrarytothemaliciousanduntruthfulclaimof[complainants],thelegalservicesofdefendant
Atty. LEONIDO DELANTE was never solicited by them. Plaintiffs only asked defendant from
wheretheycouldborrowmoney,andafterknowingthattheyjustsimplywouldliketoborrowmoney
without any concrete investments in mind to repay back [sic] any loan, defendant Atty. LEONIDO
DELANTEdrovethemoutofhisofficeandtoldthemtolookforanotherpersontohelpthem

Defendant Atty. LEONIDO DELANTE later learned from MACARIO CAPUL x x x that the
[19]
plaintiffshadnegotiatedasalewithacertainNAVARROEUSTAQUIO. (Emphasissupplied)


TheCourtisnotimpressed.Angalanandcomplainantswenttorespondentsofficenottoseekadvice
aboutborrowingmoneybuttoengagehisservicesforthepurposeofrecoveringtheirproperty.Thisis
obvious. First, after Angalan and complainants went to respondents office, respondent filed a
complaint with the CFI praying that the Spouses Eustaquio reconvey the property to Angalan and
complainants.Second,inthecomplaint,respondentstatedthat,byreasonofunwarrantedrefusalon
thepartofthedefendantstoreconveythepropertytoplaintiffs,thelatterhavebeenconstrainedto
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. P11499 in the name of Angalan (Samal). Fourth, in respondents letter
dated 10 January 1979 and addressed to the barrio captain of Umbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, he
statedthathewasthelawyerofcomplainants:

ThiswillinformyouthattheHeirsofAngalanSamalhavealreadyredeemedtheirpropertythroughme
from Mr. Navarro Eustaquio since September, 1978. In my capacity as counsel of the Heirs of
Angalan Samal and owner of the money in redeeming the property, I have authorized Mr. Macario
Capoltotakeoverthepossessionofthepropertytogetherwiththeharvestingofthematuredcoconuts.
[20]

Theseclearlyshowthatcomplainantsengagedtheservicesofrespondent.

In his answer, respondent alleged that complainants did not pay him his professional fees (which,
according to him, they did not engage). He stated that, [complainants] had never paid the herein
defendant a single centavo for purposes of filing an annulment case against x x x NAVARRO
EUSTAQUIO.

TheCourtisnotimpressed.Complainantsfullypaidrespondenthisprofessionalfees.Thisisobvious.
Inareceiptdated18November1970,respondentstatedthatheRECEIVEDfromMr.MACARIO
CAPULandFRANCISCARAFAELCAPULthesumofONETHOUSANDTWOHUNDRED
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 7/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181

PESOS(P1,200.00)representingfullpaymentofprofessionalservicesinregardtotherecoveryof
Original Certificate of Title No. P11499 in the name of Angalan (Samal). This clearly shows that
complainantspaidrespondenthisprofessionalfees.


In his answer and position paper, respondent alleged that his client from New York bought the
propertyfromtheSpousesEustaquio:

[I]nSeptember1977,aformerFilipinoclientofhereinrespondent,who,andhisfamily[sic]arenow
permanentresidentsofNewYork,waslookingforarealpropertytobuildhisretirementhome,andhe
approachedhereinrespondent,inwhich[sic]hewasreferredtoNavarroEustaquioanduponvisiting
thepropertyofNavarroEustaquio,hewasimpressedof[sic]thelocationofthepropertyanddecidedto
buy the same, hence left the money to herein respondent and to buy [sic] said property under
respondentsname,withtheunderstandingtoturnoversaidpropertytohim,assoonasheandhisfamily
shallhavereturnedtothecountry

xxx[S]incehereinrespondentwasnotinterestedoverthesaidpropertyashisown,hewaitedforhis
clientfromNewYorktocomehomeandtogethispropertybutafter11years,hisclientdecidednotto
comebackanymoretothePhilippines,anddirectedhereinrespondenttoregistertheDeedofSaleover
[21]
thepropertyunderhisnameanddirectedhereinrespondenttorefundhisclient.

TheCourtisnotimpressed.ComplainantsrepurchasedthepropertyfromtheSpousesEustaquio.This
isobvious.First,complainantsandtheSpousesEustaquioenteredintoanamicablesettlementstating
thatcomplainantswouldrepurchasethepropertyfromtheSpousesEustaquio:

1.xxx[T]heplaintiffshaveofferedtothedefendant[s]thesumofP30,000.00asrepurchaseprice
whichthedefendant[saccept]

2.xxx[U]ponthesigninghereof,theplaintiffsshallpaythedefendant[s]thesumofP15,000.00and
forthispurposeherebyauthorizethedefendantstocollectthesamefromtheClerkofCourtwhich
amounthadbeendepositedwiththisHonorableCourtLikewise,uponsigninghereoftheDeedof
Reconveyanceshallbeimmediatelyexecutedanddeliveredbythedefendantstoplaintiff[s]

3.xxx[W]hilethebalanceofP15,000.00hasnotbeenpaid,thedefendant[s]shallcontinuetopossess,
andifnecessarytogathertheproduceoftheproperty,however,uponreceiptofthedefendant[s]of
the balance of P15,000.00, said defendants together with [their] agent and/or worker, Alfredo
Rabadonshallcleartheareaandturnoverthesamewithinfifteen(15)daysfromreceipt[of]said
[22]
balance. (Emphasissupplied)

Second, in his letter to the barrio captain, respondent stated that complainants repurchased the
propertyfromtheSpousesEustaquio:

This will inform you that the Heirs of Angalan Samal have already redeemed their property
throughmefromMr. Navarro Eustaquio since September, 1978.In my capacity as counsel of the
Heirs of Angalan Samal and owner of the money in redeeming the property, I have authorized Mr.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 8/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181
MacarioCapoltotakeoverthepossessionofthepropertytogetherwiththeharvestingofthematured
[23]
coconuts. (Emphasissupplied)

TheseclearlyshowthatcomplainantsrepurchasedthepropertyfromtheSpousesEustaquio.

RespondentsstoryabouttheclientfromNewYorkisunbelievable.Respondentdidnotgiveanydetail
orprooftosubstantiatehisstorythenameoftheallegedclient,anaffidavitoftheallegedclient,the
old passport of the alleged client showing immigration stamps, or any form of correspondence
betweenhimandtheallegedclient.TheCourtagreeswiththeobservationofCommissionerHababag
that respondents vain attempt to salvage his malicious acts [is] too flimsy to gain belief and
acceptance.

In his position paper, respondent alleged that complainants executed a motion to withdraw the
complaintfordisbarmentandanaffidavitofdesistance.Thisisimmaterial.Section5,Rule139Bof
theRulesofCourtstatesthat,Noinvestigationshallbeinterruptedorterminatedbyreasonofthe
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges, or failure of the
complainanttoprosecutethesame.

RespondentviolatedCanons16and17oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility. Canon 16 states
thatlawyersshallholdintrustallpropertiesoftheirclientsthatmaycomeintotheirpossession.
RespondentshouldhaveheldintrustTCTNo.T9926andreturnedthepropertytocomplainantsupon
[24]
demand. Insteadofholdingintrustthe property of complainants, respondent (1) transferred the
titleofthepropertytohisname,(2)refusedtoreturnthepropertytocomplainants,and(3)referredto
complainantschargesasmaliciousanduntruthful.

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.
Complainantsengagedtheservicesofrespondentinthehopethathewouldhelpthemrecovertheir
property. Instead of protecting the interests of complainants, respondent took advantage of
complainantsandtransferredthetitleofthepropertytohisname.

Consideringthedepravityofrespondentsoffense,theCourtfindstherecommendedpenaltytoolight.
[25]
ViolationofCanons16and17constitutesgrossmisconduct. Section27,Rule138oftheRulesof
Courtstatesthatamemberofthebarmaybedisbarredorsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorneybythe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 9/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181

[26]
Courtforgrossmisconduct.InHernandezv.Go, theCourtdisbarredalawyerfortransferringthe
titlesoverthepropertiesofhisclienttohisnamewithouttheknowledgeofhisclient.InHernandez,
theCourtheldthat:

Consideringthedepravityofrespondentsoffense,wefindthepenaltyrecommendedbytheIBP
toolight.Itbearsreiteratingthatalawyerwhotakesadvantageofhisclientsfinancialplighttoacquire
the latters properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty,andintegrityofthelegalprofession.Thus,forviolationofCanon16andCanon17oftheCode
of Professional Responsibility, which constitutes gross misconduct, and consistent with the need to
maintainthehighstandardsoftheBarandthuspreservethefaithofthepublicinthelegalprofession,
respondentdeservestheultimatepenalty,thatofexpulsionfromtheesteemedbrotherhoodoflawyers.
[27]

Apersonwhotakesthe8.102hectarepropertyofhisilliterateclientsandwhoisincapableoftelling
thetruthisunfittobealawyer.

WHEREFORE,theCourtfindsAtty.LeonidoC.DelanteGUILTYofviolatingCanons16and17of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Accordingly,theCourtDISBARShimfromthepracticeof
lawandORDERSthathisnamebestrickenfromtheRollofAttorneys.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines,andallcourtsalloverthecountry.LetacopyofthisDecisionlikewisebeattachedtothe
personalrecordsofrespondent.

SOORDERED.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice





LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 10/12
 4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181

ANTONIOT.CARPIO MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





RENATOC.CORONA CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





ADOLFOS.AZCUNA DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice






ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 11/12
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7181

[1]
Rollo(Vol.I),pp.1112.
[2]
Id.at1316.
[3]
Id.at17.
[4]
Id.at18.
[5]
Id.(Vol.II)at5760.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id.at6970.
[8]
Id.at69.
[9]
Id.at7173.
[10]
Id.(Vol.I)at19.
[11]
Id.(Vol.II)at74.
[12]
Id.at7683.
[13]
Id.at8495.
[14]
Id.at8589.
[15]
Id.(Vol.I)at110.
[16]
Id.at22.
[17]
Id.at89.
[18]
Section12(b),Rule139BoftheRulesofCourtprovides:

IftheBoard,bythevoteofthemajorityofitstotalmembership,determinesthattherespondentshouldbesuspendedfromthepractice
oflawordisbarred,itshallissuearesolutionsettingforthitsfindingsandrecommendationswhich,togetherwiththewholerecordof
thecase,shallforthwithbetransmittedtotheSupremeCourtforfinalaction.
[19]
Rollo(Vol.II),pp.86,88.
[20]
Seenote10.
[21]
Rollo(Vol.II),p.89.
[22]
Id.at69.
[23]
Seenote10.
[24]
Rule16.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitystatesthat,Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpropertyofhisclientwhendueor
upondemand.
[25]
Hernandezv.Go,A.C.No.1526,31January2005,450SCRA1.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id.at1011.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/7181.htm 12/12