In Lumbre v. Belleza, the Supreme Court addressed the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, particularly their duty to uphold the law and refrain from conduct that discredits the legal profession. The Court found Atty. Erwin Belleza guilty of gross misconduct for chasing and threatening minors with a firearm, an act that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. This decision underscores that lawyers are expected to be exemplars of the law and must not engage in actions that instill fear or endanger the well-being of others, especially children. The Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain the highest standards of ethical behavior both in their professional and private lives, and failure to do so can result in severe disciplinary actions, including suspension from the practice of law.

When a Lawyer Becomes the Menace: Examining Abuse of Power and Child Endangerment

This case originated from a complaint filed by Leo Lumbre on behalf of his minor children, Leojohn and Rufrex, against Atty. Erwin Belleza. The Lumbre family alleged that on May 24, 2007, Atty. Belleza, along with others, destroyed a nipa hut on their property and subsequently chased Leojohn and Rufrex while brandishing a firearm. The children claimed that Atty. Belleza’s actions instilled fear and affected their emotional well-being, leading to the filing of a disbarment complaint. The central legal question revolved around whether Atty. Belleza’s alleged actions constituted gross misconduct and warranted disciplinary measures under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The complainants presented affidavits, including those from Leojohn and Rufrex, detailing the events of that day. Their accounts were corroborated by other witnesses, including Leo Lumbre’s daughter, Genevieve, and two other individuals, Danilo R. Mardoquio and Roland Rodriguez. These affidavits consistently stated that Atty. Belleza was present at the scene, carrying a firearm, and actively participated in chasing the minors. The consistency and corroboration among these testimonies strengthened the complainants’ version of events. Furthermore, a psychiatric evaluation of Rufrex Lumbre revealed that he suffered from impaired sleep and nervousness following the incident, providing further evidence of the psychological impact of Atty. Belleza’s actions.

Atty. Belleza, in his defense, denied being present at the Lumbre family’s property on the day in question. He submitted sworn statements from Barangay Kagawad Teofilo Balosca and the latter’s laborers, who supported his claim of absence. Atty. Belleza argued that the complaint was a form of harassment intended to impede him from representing his client, Teofilo Balosca. However, he failed to provide a concrete alibi or any substantial evidence to support his claim of being elsewhere during the incident. The Court found Atty. Belleza’s denial unconvincing, noting the lack of a clear explanation of his whereabouts at the time of the alleged events.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. CBD Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera opined that the IBP did not have the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation into the criminal aspects of the case, such as attempted homicide or murder. However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this recommendation, finding Atty. Belleza guilty of gross misconduct and recommending a two-month suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors highlighted that Atty. Belleza’s actions violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. They also noted that his actions could be construed as child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ finding of guilt but modified the recommended penalty. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the law and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. It cited Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to obey the laws of the land and conduct themselves in a manner that does not discredit the legal profession.

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

x x x x

CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The Court found that Atty. Belleza’s actions constituted a serious breach of ethical standards, warranting a more severe penalty than the IBP recommended. It referenced the case of De Leon v. Atty. Castelo, where it was emphasized that lawyers are expected to act with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. The Court stated that Atty. Belleza had “wittingly turned himself into an instrument of terror against the minors,” demonstrating a clear disregard for the law and the well-being of others. His actions fell under the classification of Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development as defined and punished under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610.

The Supreme Court defined gross misconduct as “improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.” Given the severity of Atty. Belleza’s actions, the Court determined that a one-year suspension from the practice of law was a more appropriate penalty. This decision aligns with previous cases, such as Gonzalez v. Atty. Alcaraz, where similar penalties were imposed for attorneys who engaged in violent and reckless behavior.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Erwin Belleza’s actions of chasing and threatening minors with a firearm constituted gross misconduct, warranting disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What did the complainants allege against Atty. Belleza?	The complainants alleged that Atty. Belleza, along with others, destroyed a nipa hut on their property and chased the minor children, Leojohn and Rufrex, while brandishing a firearm, causing them fear and emotional distress.
What was Atty. Belleza’s defense?	Atty. Belleza denied being present at the scene of the alleged incident and claimed that the complaint was a form of harassment intended to prevent him from representing his client.
What was the IBP’s initial recommendation?	The IBP initially dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, but the IBP Board of Governors reversed this decision, finding Atty. Belleza guilty of gross misconduct and recommending a two-month suspension from the practice of law.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s finding of guilt but modified the penalty, imposing a one-year suspension from the practice of law, effective from notice.
What provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Belleza violate?	Atty. Belleza violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law, refrain from unlawful conduct, and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 7610 in this case?	Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, was relevant because Atty. Belleza’s actions were considered to fall under the classification of Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development, as defined and punished under the Act.
What is the definition of gross misconduct?	Gross misconduct is defined as “improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.”
Why did the Supreme Court increase the penalty?	The Supreme Court increased the penalty because it found that Atty. Belleza’s actions constituted a serious breach of ethical standards, endangering the lives and mental health of the minors, thus warranting a more severe punishment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lumbre v. Belleza serves as a reminder to all lawyers that they are held to the highest ethical standards and must conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the law and protects the well-being of others, especially children. The Court’s firm stance against Atty. Belleza’s actions underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity and dignity 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: LEO LUMBRE, LEOJOHN L. LUMBRE, AND RUFREX L. LUMBRE, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ERWIN BELLEZA, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 65183, March 06, 2019