Title
Supreme Court
Espanto vs. Belleza
Case
A.C. No. 10756
Decision Date
Feb 21, 2018
A lawyer facilitated the unauthorized sale and demolition of a client's house, violating legal processes and breaching trust, leading to a six-month suspension.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10756)

Allegations Against Atty. Belleza

Junielito filed a complaint against Atty. Belleza for grave misconduct, malpractice, deliberate falsehood, violation of the lawyer's oath, and breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He alleged that Atty. Belleza unlawfully facilitated the demolition of his house without his knowledge or consent, and without the necessary permits. He also claimed that Atty. Belleza lied in legal documents and exhibited unprofessional conduct, alleging that his actions demonstrated a violation of his obligations as an officer of the court.

Background of the Dispute

In 2006, while Junielito was abroad, Nelia filed a case for Recovery of Possession against his family, which Junielito claimed he was not included in as a party. Upon returning to the Philippines in January 2009, he was harassed by Nelia to pay for the alleged encroachment. Atty. Belleza communicated a notice to vacate the property and threatened Junielito with a writ of execution for demolition, leading him to agree to a sale of the property under duress.

The Demolition of the House

On February 14, 2011, Junielito learned from a relative that his house was being demolished. Investigating further, he discovered that a Deed of Absolute Sale had been executed without his knowledge, wherein Nelia sold the property to a buyer named Irene Tano with Atty. Belleza's facilitation. Junielito contended that this transaction breached their prior agreement regarding notification and participation in the sale.

Findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

Atty. Belleza refuted the allegations, claiming that a compromise agreement had been approved by the court and that his role was limited to witnessing a receipt for partial payment. The IBP-CBD recommended Atty. Belleza's six-month suspension from practice due to misconduct. However, the IBP Board of Governors modified this to a three-month suspension.

Legal Framework and Conduct of Atty. Belleza

The court reiterated that professional misconduct pertaining to lawyers is adjudicated based on criteria distinct from civil or criminal cases, focusing on the capacity of the lawyer to uphold justice. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to obey laws and legal processes, and Atty. Belleza’s actions were found to be in direct contravention of this canon.

Broader Implications of the Compromise Agreement

Even if a compromise agreement existed, it was noted that it did not absolve Atty. Belleza of his obligations. The agreement required that a relocation survey be conduct

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.