A.C. No. 10756 - Espanto vs. Belleza

Complainant Junielito R. Espanto is the owner of a 2-storey concrete residential house situated on a lot covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-43641, which he acquired through a sale from his father on January 12, 2001.
Respondent Atty. Erwin V. Belleza, a lawyer engaged by Nelia Alibangbang-Miller, served as the legal representative in matters concerning the subject property.
Nelia, a neighbor, claimed that Junielito’s house was encroaching on a portion of her adjoining lot, thereby sparking the ensuing legal conflict.

In 2006, while abroad, Junielito was informed that Nelia was asserting an encroachment claim against his house.
Subsequently, Nelia filed a case for Recovery of Possession with Damages before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of MacArthur-Mayorga, MacArthur, Leyte, docketed as Civil Case No. 75 against the Espanto family.
Despite the filing, Junielito was not included as a party in the complaint, although his residential property was directly affected by the allegations.

After returning to the Philippines in January 2009, Junielito alleged that Nelia persistently harassed him, consistently threatening not only monetary demands for the alleged encroached land but also the demolition of his house.
On November 22, 2010, through a letter, Atty. Belleza served a notice to Junielito demanding that he vacate the subject property of his client, Nelia, within seven (7) days.
Following the expiry of the seven-day period, a notice was posted on the door of Junielito’s house and the gate was padlocked.

On December 1, 2010, Atty. Belleza visited Junielito’s house and allegedly threatened that a writ of execution would be filed to demolish his house if he did not agree to sell and vacate the property.
Although initially resistant, Junielito eventually yielded due to exhaustion from continuous harassment.
An acknowledgment receipt was drafted by Atty. Belleza, indicating that Junielito had received a partial payment of ₱50,000.00, with the promise that he would get a final percentage of the sale price upon the eventual sale of Nelia’s property.
On February 14, 2011, Junielito received a text message from his niece, Elenita Pille, notifying him of the demolition of his house, which occurred without his prior knowledge, consent, or any permit from the municipal government.
Upon reviewing a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed between Nelia and a buyer, Irene, and prepared by Atty. Belleza, Junielito realized that the sale had been conducted fraudulently and in contravention of the agreed arrangements.

In his Counter-Affidavit dated April 30, 2011, Atty. Belleza asserted that Civil Case No. 75 had been decided with finality, despite evidence that the case was still pending as shown in a subsequent Certification.
The Spouses Miller similarly provided a Counter-Affidavit attempting to misrepresent the nature of the ₱50,000.00 payment.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) received the complaint against Atty. Belleza and, on October 7, 2011, ordered him to submit his Answer.
In his Answer dated November 10, 2011, Atty. Belleza contended that a valid Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. 75 existed, which allegedly authorized his acts.
The IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation dated July 19, 2012, recommended the suspension of Atty. Belleza from practice for six (6) months due to his deliberate disregard of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP-Board of Governors later modified the recommendation to a three (3) month suspension; however, upon review, the disciplinary body ultimately imposed a six-month suspension.

Whether Atty. Belleza, in his handling of the legal affairs concerning the subject property, violated the ethical and professional standards set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Specifically, whether his actions constituted breaches of Canon 1 (upholding the Constitution, obeying the laws, and promoting respect for legal processes) and Canon 19 (obligation to represent clients zealously but within the bounds of the law).

Whether the demolition of Junielito’s house, conducted without his consent, due process, or the necessary demolition permits and court orders, was in compliance with established legal and procedural safeguards.

Whether Atty. Belleza’s facilitation of the sale of the subject property in contravention of the pending Civil Case No. 75 and the terms of the Compromise Agreement effectively deprived Junielito of his legal rights and interests.

Whether the alleged representations in the Counter-Affidavits and acknowledgment receipt evidenced a deliberate attempt to mislead and deny Junielito’s claim as an interested party to the subject property sale.