Title
Supreme Court
Lumbre vs. Belleza
Case
A.C. No. 12113
Decision Date
Mar 6, 2019
Atty. Belleza chased minors with a firearm, causing trauma; found guilty of gross misconduct, suspended for one year.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12113)

Petitioner and Respondent

  • Complainants: Leojohn Lumbre and Rufrex Lumbre.
  • Respondent: Atty. Erwin Belleza.

Complaint Background

The basis of the complaint was a series of actions by Atty. Belleza, who, along with others, allegedly chased and threatened the complainants while brandishing firearms. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) received the complaint through the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) on March 31, 2008. The minors reported that Atty. Belleza and his companions destroyed their nipa hut and subsequently threatened them with guns, leading to fear and psychological harm.

Affidavits and Testimonies

Affidavits from the complainants, including details corroborated by third-party witnesses, detailed the events during the incident. Notably, Genevieve Lumbre, the sibling of the complainants, also provided an affidavit supporting their claims, observing Atty. Belleza with his firearm near their home following the incident.

Respondent's Defense

Atty. Belleza denied the allegations against him, claiming that he had no involvement in the events described. He argued that the complaint was constructed to obstruct his professional duties as a lawyer for a third party involved with the complainants' family.

IBP Findings and Recommendations

On November 19, 2013, the IBP's CBD Commissioner initially dismissed the complaint due to a supposed lack of jurisdiction over criminal acts and the sufficiency of evidence. However, the IBP Board of Governors later reversed this recommendation on August 10, 2014, finding Atty. Belleza guilty of gross misconduct, imposing a suspension from the practice of law for two months. They identified the violations as both unlawful and detrimental to the minors under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Republic Act No. 7610 regarding child protection.

Judicial Ruling

The Court upheld the findings of gross misconduct, noting consistent testimonies from the minors and corroborative statements from witnesses. The Court stressed the seriousness of Atty. Belleza's actions, which amounted not only to misconduct but also to psychological harm inflicted upon vulnerable minors. Atty. Belleza's defense, asserting that the complaint was frivolous, failed to negate the credible testimonies presented against him.

Code of Professional Responsibility

The decision drew on key provisions from the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1 and Canon 7, emphasizing that lawyers must promote respect for laws and display integrity in their actions. The Court articulated that Atty. Belleza’s behavior breached these ethical obligations, reflecting on his professional fitness to practice law.

Penalty Assessment

Upon reviewing the circumstances and the psychological impact of the mis

...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.