A.C. No. 5279 - Telles vs. Dancel

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5279)

Factual Background

The complainants are illiterate members of the Samal Tribe who, together with their ancestor Angalan Samal and his spouse Sanaan Samal, held an Original Certificate of Title No. P-11499 covering a 9.102-hectare parcel in Barrio San Jose, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte. On 15 April 1971 the heirs purportedly borrowed P15,000 from Navarro R. Eustaquio and Arabella P. Eustaquio, allegedly mortgaging 8.102 hectares and surrendering OCT No. P-11499. The Spouses Eustaquio prepared a document which the heirs thumb-printed; the heirs later learned that the document was a deed of absolute sale and that Navarro transferred the title into his name as TCT No. T-9926, canceling OCT No. P-11499.

Engagement of Respondent and Early Proceedings

The heirs engaged Atty. Leonido C. Delante to recover the property. Respondent issued a receipt dated 18 November 1970 acknowledging receipt of P1,200 from Macario Capul and Francisca Rafael Capul as full payment of professional services for the recovery of OCT No. P-11499. Respondent thereafter filed a complaint on 13 April 1976 with the then Court of First Instance, alleging that the heirs were original patentees entitled to repurchase under the Public Land Law and that they had engaged counsel because of defendants’ refusal to reconvey the property.

Amicable Settlement and Respondent’s Subsequent Possession

The parties executed an amicable settlement dated 3 September 1977 in which the heirs offered to repurchase the property for P30,000, with P15,000 to be paid immediately from deposited court funds and the balance to be paid later, and with the defendants to reconvey upon payment. The CFI approved the settlement by decision dated 30 September 1977. Lacking funds, the complainants contend that respondent advanced the P30,000 and, in consideration, was allowed to possess the property and gather its produce until repaid. In a letter dated 10 January 1979 addressed to the barrio captain, respondent described himself as counsel of the heirs and as owner of the money used to redeem the property, authorizing Macario Capul to take possession and harvest coconuts.

Transfer of Title and Complainants’ Attempts to Recover

When the heirs attempted to repay the P30,000 and reclaim the property, respondent refused to return possession. The heirs learned that respondent had caused the cancellation of TCT No. T-9926 and the issuance of TCT No. T-57932 in respondent’s name. The heirs filed a civil action dated 30 April 2004 seeking declaration that the Spouses Eustaquio’s deed of absolute sale was void, annulment of TCT No. T-57932, and damages. That action was docketed as Civil Case No. 57-2004.

Respondent’s Denials and Alternative Explanation

In his answer dated 29 December 2004 and in a later position paper, respondent denied that the heirs engaged his services to recover the property. He asserted that the visit in 1971 was to seek borrowing advice and that he drove the visitors from his office. Respondent further alleged that in September 1977 a former Filipino client now residing in New York decided to buy the property, entrusted the purchase money to respondent, and had agreed that the deed be registered initially in respondent’s name pending the client’s return, ultimately instructing respondent to register the deed in respondent’s name and to refund the client after electing not to return to the Philippines.

Filing of the Administrative Complaint and IBP Referral

The heirs filed a complaint for disbarment dated 28 December 2005 charging respondent with gross violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court required a comment and, by resolution dated 4 December 2006, referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B. Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag scheduled a mandatory conference, which the parties failed to attend, and later directed the submission of position papers.

Partial Withdrawal and Investigative Report

Complainants filed a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance in April 2007. The IBP Commissioner nevertheless proceeded with the investigation and, after weighing the evidence, prepared a Report dated 15 October 2007 finding that respondent bought the property of his clients without their knowledge or consent and that respondent’s explanations lacked credibility. Commissioner Hababag concluded that respondent committed unprofessional acts deserving punishment and recommended suspension from the practice of law for six months.

IBP Board Action and Transmission to the Court

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Commissioner’s Report on 22 November 2007 but modified the recommended penalty, increasing the suspension from six months to one year. The Board then forwarded the record to the Supreme Court for final disposition pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Facts

The Court reviewed the entire record and credited the heirs’ version of events. The Court found respondent’s credibility highly questionable and rejected respondent’s recurrent assertions that the heirs had not engaged his services, had not paid fees, or that a New York client had purchased the property. The Court relied upon respondent’s own pleadings and documents against him: the complaint he filed in the CFI stating that the heirs “have engaged the services of counsel”; the receipt dated 18 November 1970 acknowledging full payment of P1,200 for professional services in recovering OCT No. P-11499; and respondent’s 10 January 1979 letter to the barrio captain in which he described himself as counsel and as owner of the money used to redeem the property.

Legal Findings: Violation of Canons 16 and 17

The Court found that respondent violated Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court observed that Rule 16.03 requires a lawyer to deliver funds and property of a client when due or

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5279)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Maria Angalan, Nena Angalan, Dionicio Angalan, Magdalena Angalan, Francisca Angalan, Inis Angalan, Rosalino Angalan, and Josefina Angalan were the complainants and identified themselves as the heirs of Angalan Samal and Sanaan Samal.
Atty. Leonido C. Delante was the respondent and the subject of a complaint for gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complaint originated as an administrative charge filed with the Court and was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation pursuant to procedural rules.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP Commissioner’s report with modification and transmitted its recommendation to the Court under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
The Court rendered the final disposition finding the respondent guilty and imposing the penalty of disbarment.

Key Factual Allegations

The parties originally owned a 9.102-hectare parcel of land in Barrio San Jose, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-11499.
On April 15, 1971, the heirs purportedly borrowed P15,000 from Navarro R. Eustaquio and Arabella P. Eustaquio and surrendered OCT No. P-11499, with complainants later discovering that the document they thumb-marked was a deed of absolute sale over 8.102 hectares.
Navarro subsequently had TCT No. T-9926 issued in his name over the 8.102-hectare portion.
Complainants engaged respondent to recover the title and respondent issued a receipt dated November 18, 1970 acknowledging receipt of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) from Macario Capul and Francisca Rafael Capul as full payment of professional services.
Respondent filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance on April 13, 1976 seeking reconveyance of the property to the heirs.
An amicable settlement dated September 3, 1977 provided for the heirs’ repurchase of the property for P30,000 with P15,000 to be collected from the Clerk of Court and the balance to follow.
Complainants lacked funds and respondent advanced P30,000, after which respondent possessed the property and gathered its produce until allegedly paid.
Respondent, in a letter dated January 10, 1979, stated that the heirs had redeemed the property through him and that he authorized Macario Capol to take over possession and harvest coconuts.
Complainants later sought to repay respondent and recover possession, but respondent refused and caused TCT No. T-57932 to be issued in his name.

Procedural History

Respondent filed the CFI complaint on April 13, 1976, and the CFI approved the parties’ amicable settlement by Decision dated September 30, 1977.
Complainants filed Civil Case No. 57-2004 on April 30, 2004 seeking annulment of the alleged deed of sale and declaration voiding TCT No. T-57932 and praying for damages.
Respondent filed his answer to the civil case on December 29, 2004 and later faced an administrative complaint for disbarment filed December 28, 2005.
The Court required respondent to comment on July 3, 2006 and referred the case to the IBP on December 4, 2006 for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag conducted proceedings, issued a report on October 15, 2007 finding violations of the Code and recommending suspension for six months, and the IBP Board of Governors increased the suspension to one year on November 22, 2007.
The IBP forwarded the case under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court to the Court for final action, and the Court rend