The Supreme Court has ruled that lawyers must uphold the law and respect legal processes, even when zealously representing their clients. In a case involving the demolition of a house during a property dispute, the Court suspended a lawyer for six months. This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must act within the bounds of the law and ethical standards, emphasizing that client interests should not supersede truth and justice. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to attorneys about their duty to the legal system.

Demolition and Deceit: When Does Client Advocacy Cross the Line?

This case, Junielito R. Espanto v. Atty. Erwin V. Belleza, arose from a property dispute in MacArthur, Leyte. Junielito Espanto filed a complaint against Atty. Erwin Belleza for grave misconduct, malpractice, deliberate falsehood, violation of oath of office, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The heart of the issue was the demolition of Espanto’s two-story house, which occurred without his knowledge or consent, allegedly facilitated by Atty. Belleza on behalf of his client, Nelia Alibangbang-Miller.

Espanto claimed that Alibangbang-Miller had filed a case for Recovery of Possession with Damages against his relatives, asserting that Espanto’s house encroached on her property. Although Espanto was not initially a party to the case, he was later served a notice to vacate by Atty. Belleza. An acknowledgment receipt indicated a partial payment to Espanto for the portion of land his house occupied, with a promise to inform him of the final sale details. However, the property was sold and Espanto’s house demolished without his knowledge, leading to the filing of this administrative case against Atty. Belleza.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) investigated the matter and recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Belleza, which the IBP-Board of Governors later modified to three months. The Supreme Court ultimately concurred with the IBP-CBD’s findings, emphasizing the importance of a lawyer’s duty to uphold the law and respect legal processes. The Court highlighted that administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from civil and criminal cases, focusing on whether the attorney remains fit to practice law.

The Court anchored its decision on Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates obedience to laws and legal processes. A lawyer must respect and abide by the law, avoiding any act or omission contrary to it. The Supreme Court stated:

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.

The Court found that Atty. Belleza failed to exercise the good faith required of a lawyer in handling his client’s legal affairs. Despite disputing Espanto’s ownership, Atty. Belleza was aware of Espanto’s interest in the property, as evidenced by the acknowledgment receipt. The Court quoted the acknowledgment receipt to emphasize this point:

I, LITO ESPANTO acknowledge receipt of the sum of Fifty Thousand (50,000.00) pesos, Philippine Currency from Nelia Miller as partial payment towards sale of “house”. I acknowledged I will receive a final percentage of sale price when house and lot by Nelia Miller is ultimately sold. Final sales details will be disclosed immediately to me when all property is sold and final payment will be made at that time. I acknowledge sale price cannot be “predetermined” due to economic conditions.

This receipt, according to the Court, indicated that Espanto had the right to be informed of the final sale price and other details. The Court inferred that Atty. Belleza and his client recognized Espanto’s interest, even if only pertaining to the portion of the property where his house stood. The Court noted that Atty. Belleza never denied the existence or his signature on the receipt. This failure to inform Espanto of the sale was a breach of their agreement and a betrayal of trust, instigating a malicious and unlawful transaction to Espanto’s prejudice.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that even assuming there was a compromise agreement, selling the property without complying with its conditions was malicious. One of the core issues in the original case was whether Espanto’s house encroached on Alibangbang-Miller’s property, which required a relocation survey. The Court referenced the compromise agreement:

1. Parties agreed to relocate the subject properties designated as Cadastral Lot Nos. 127, and 159;

2. Parties agreed that a commissioner be appointed by the Court to conduct the relocation survey which be (sic) composed of a qualified and licensed geodetic engineer from the office of the Land and Surveys Division of the Department Environment and Natural Resources, Sto. Niño, Extension, Tacloban City;

x x x x

4. Parties likewise agreed that if ever it will be found out by the result of the survey that indeed defendants encroached a portion of the land of the plaintiff designated as Cadastral Lot No. 159, parties have the following options:

a. Defendants will buy from the plaintiff the whole area encroached at a reasonable price; or
b. If defendants cannot afford, defendants shall buy only the area encroached which the house of the defendant is located with reasonable yard at reasonable price and defendant shall vacate the remaining area and transfer to the unoccupied portion of lot 127 vacated by the heirs of Onofre Lagarto provided further that plaintiff will be responsible to the heirs of Onofre Lagarto for them to remove their house; or
c. Plaintiff shall buy the value of the house at a reasonable price;

5. That if ever if (sic) it’s found out by the relocation survey that the defendants have not encroached the land of the plaintiff designated as Cadastral Lot No. 159, then, plaintiff will not disturb the peaceful possession of the defendants and would voluntarily dismiss the above-entitled complaint;

The demolition of Espanto’s house occurred before any relocation survey was conducted. The Court underscored that a compromise agreement, once approved, has the force of res judicata, and Atty. Belleza ignored its provisions. In essence, when Atty. Belleza proceeded with the sale without the required relocation survey, he violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court also noted that Espanto was not a party to the civil case, and thus, any judgment or writ of execution would not bind him. Moreover, Atty. Belleza failed to show a demolition order issued by the court or a demolition permit from the local government. The Supreme Court emphasized that demolition requires a writ of execution and a special order from the court, adhering to principles of justice and fair play. The pertinent provisions regarding the removal of improvements on property subject to execution are clear:

(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. When the property subject of execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.

Finally, the Court rejected Atty. Belleza’s attempt to shift blame to the buyer, Irene, stating that the demolition would not have occurred if Atty. Belleza and his client had not sold the property in violation of the compromise agreement. The lawyer’s actions violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for legal processes. Atty. Belleza’s actions infringed upon Espanto’s constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process of law.

The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Belleza’s actions constituted malpractice and gross misconduct, warranting a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Belleza violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by facilitating the sale and demolition of a property without the owner’s knowledge and in violation of a compromise agreement. The Supreme Court examined the lawyer’s duty to uphold the law and respect legal processes while representing his client.
What is Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Canon 1 mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. This canon emphasizes a lawyer’s duty to act within the bounds of the law and to promote respect for the legal system.
Why was Atty. Belleza suspended?	Atty. Belleza was suspended for violating Canons 1 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, he issued a notice to vacate while the case was pending, failed to inform the property owner of the sale, and facilitated the sale in violation of the compromise agreement.
What is a compromise agreement and what is its effect?	A compromise agreement is a contract between parties to settle a dispute, and once approved by the court, it has the force of res judicata. This means it is binding on the parties and can only be disturbed for vices of consent or forgery.
Was Espanto a party to the original civil case?	No, Junielito Espanto was not a party to the original civil case. The case was initially filed against his relatives, and the Court noted that any judgment or writ of execution would not bind him.
What is required for a legal demolition of property?	A legal demolition requires a writ of execution and a special order from the court, following a motion and hearing with due notice to the parties. Additionally, local government permits may be required.
What does the acknowledgment receipt signify in this case?	The acknowledgment receipt, signed by Espanto and witnessed by Atty. Belleza, indicated that Espanto had an interest in the property and a right to be informed of the final sale details. This undermined Atty. Belleza’s claim that Espanto had no rights to the property.
What is the role of the IBP in disciplinary cases against lawyers?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigates complaints against lawyers through its Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The IBP-CBD makes recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors, which then makes a final decision that can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

This Supreme Court decision serves as a crucial reminder to lawyers about the ethical boundaries within legal representation. The ruling reinforces the principle that attorneys must balance their duty to clients with an unwavering commitment to upholding the law and promoting justice, which is the cornerstone of the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JUNIELITO R. ESPANTO v. ATTY. ERWIN V. BELLEZA, A.C. No. 10756, February 21, 2018