Espanto v. Belleza - February 2018 - Digest

A.C. NO.
10756
JUNIELITO R. ESPANTO V. ATTY. ERWIN V. BELLEZA
21 February 2018
FACTS:
 Before us is the verified Complaint1 of Junielito R. Espanto (Junielito) against Atty. Erwin
V. Belleza (Atty. Belleza) for grave misconduct, malpractice, deliberate falsehood,
violation of oath of office and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility in
connection with the demolition of complainant's 2-storey residential house situated at
Barangay Maya, MacArthur, Leyte, without his knowledge and against his will.
 Complainant alleged that he is the owner of a 2-storey concrete residential house

situated on a lot covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-43641, which was sold by
his father to him on January 12, 2001.
 Junielito alleged that sometime in 2006 while working abroad, he was informed that
Nelia Alibangbang-Miller (Nelia), their neighbor, was claiming that his house was
encroaching on a portion of the adjoining lot she bought.
 Thereafter, 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 Espantos. However, Junielito asserted that he was not
included as party to said complaint despite Nelia's allegation that his house was
encroaching on the latter's lot.
 In January 2009, after Junielito went back to the Philippines, he averred that Nelia would
always harass him to pay the portion of the land allegedly being encroached upon by his
house. He complained that Nelia threatened him and his family that she would demolish
their houses as she already won in the case she filed against his brother, sister and
mother.
 On 22 November 2010, through a letter, Atty. Belleza notified Junielito that he is given
seven (7) days to vacate the subject property of his client, Nelia. After seven days, Nelia
posted a notice on the door of his house stating "To: Lita, your 7 days is up! Nelia Miller,"
and padlocked the gate of Junielito's house.
 On 01 December 2010, Junielito alleged that Atty. Belleza went to his house and
threatened him that they will file a writ of execution to demolish his house if he will not
agree to sell and vacate his house. Junielito lamented that while he initially refused, he
eventually gave in, as he was already tired of his situation.
 On the same day, because Junielito was initially reluctant, Nelia and Atty. Belleza
assured him that he will be informed of the final details of the sale should there be a
buyer of the property. Junielito alleged that Atty. Belleza drafted an acknowledgment
receipt where it was indicated therein that he received the amount of P50,000.00 as a
partial payment, and that he will receive the final percentage of the sale price when the
property of Nelia is sold.
 Thereafter, Atty. Belleza and the Spouses Miller told him to vacate the house to facilitate
its sale and to be able to make the necessary repairs to which he complied as he
believed their sincerity and honesty.
 Junielito lamented that when he got hold of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Nelia
and Irene, which was prepared and notarized by Atty. Belleza, he then realized that the
latter defrauded him as shown by the fact that he facilitated the sale without his
knowledge.
 Junielito expressed his frustration, as he believed that Atty. Belleza, a lawyer, was
supposed to be an instrument in the administration of justice. However, given his above-
mentioned actuations and behavior, Atty. Belleza not only failed to observe his duty and
obligations as a lawyer but he likewise showed his unfitness to be retained as member
of the bar. He, thus, pray that Atty. Belleza be suspended or disbarred from the practice
of law.
 In his Answer, dated 10 November 2011, Atty. Belleza countered that there was already
a Compromise Agreement between the parties in Civil Case No. 75, which was
approved by the court on 27 December 2006. He, likewise, claimed that he merely typed
and printed the acknowledgment receipt and served as witness to the issuance of the
same. He further denied that he had any participation in the demolition of complainant's
house.
 In its Report and Recommendation dated 19 July 2012, the IBP CBD recommended that
Atty. Belleza be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months for his deliberate
disregard of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law and for violating
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes. The Court finds respondent Atty. Erwin V. Belleza guilty of violation of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months.
The Court affirms the findings and adopts the recommendations of the IBP with modifications.
Well established is the rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their
own. These cases are distinct from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not
the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such.
Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the
Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the
purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the
profession of members who by their misconduct have proven themselves no longer worthy to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. To the
best of his ability, a lawyer is expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act
or omission that is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of
his character but it also inspires respect and obedience to the law, on the part of the public.
Given the facts of the case, the Court find that Atty. Belleza failed to exercise the good faith
required of a lawyer in handling the legal affairs of his client. Even without touching the issue of
the subject properties' ownership, Atty. Belleza cannot deny that the subject property sold by
Nelia to Irene was still pending litigation due to the alleged encroachment of Junielito's house on
the property of Nelia. It was precisely the reason why they filed a complaint for recovery of
possession against Junielito's relatives. Moreover, when Atty. Belleza sent a notice to vacate
Nelia's property to Junielito on November 22, 2010, the civil case was still pending litigation.
Clearly, Atty. Belleza's actuations, which resulted in the demolition of Junielito's house violates
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates that a lawyer must uphold
the Constitution and promote respect for the legal processes. In fact, contrary to this edict, Atty.
Belleza's acts of demanding Junielito to vacate his house, and the selling of the property while
Civil Case no. 75 was still pending, he violated the basic constitutional right of Junielito not to be
deprived of a right or property without due process of law.

Espanto v. Belleza - February 2018 - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Espanto v. Belleza - February 2018 - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Espanto v. Belleza - February 2018 - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. NO.

JUNIELITO R. ESPANTO V. ATTY. ERWIN V. BELLEZA

 Complainant alleged that he is the owner of a 2-storey concrete residential house

You might also like