A.C. No. 10756, February 21, 2018
Junielito R. Espanto, Complainant vs. Atty. Erwin V. Belleza, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Junielito Espanto owned a house allegedly encroaching on a lot owned by Nelia Alibangbang-Miller. While a civil case for recovery of possession was pending, respondent Atty. Belleza, as Miller’s counsel, sent Espanto a notice to vacate. Under pressure, Espanto signed an acknowledgment receipt for a partial payment, prepared by Atty. Belleza, which stipulated he would be informed of any final sale of the property. Espanto vacated the house to facilitate repairs and a sale. However, without his knowledge, Atty. Belleza facilitated and notarized a deed of absolute sale between Miller and a third-party buyer. Espanto’s house was subsequently demolished. He also alleged Atty. Belleza made false statements in a counter-affidavit, claiming the civil case was final when it was not.
Atty. Belleza defended himself by asserting a compromise agreement was already approved in the civil case. He claimed he merely typed the receipt as a witness and denied participation in the demolition. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found him liable and recommended suspension.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Erwin V. Belleza violated the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Belleza is guilty of professional misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyer discipline cases aim to protect public interest and determine an attorney’s fitness to remain in the legal profession. The Court found Atty. Belleza’s actions constituted malpractice and gross misconduct. First, he issued a notice to vacate while litigation was still pending, undermining judicial processes. Second, he violated the explicit stipulation in the acknowledgment receipt he drafted by failing to inform Espanto of the sale, facilitating and notarizing the deed of absolute sale in secret. This act breached the compromise agreement, which required a relocation survey before any sale concerning the encroachment. Third, he made a deliberate falsehood in a judicial affidavit by misrepresenting the status of the civil case as final, which was contradicted by an official certification.
These acts collectively violated Canons 1 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 requires a lawyer to uphold respect for law and legal processes, while Canon 19 mandates fidelity to a lawyer’s trust. Atty. Belleza’s conduct demonstrated deceit, abuse of his position as an officer of the court, and a disregard for the rights of the complainant. The Court modified the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law with a stern warning against repetition.