A.C. No. 9354 – 860 Phil. 239 – Legal Ethics – CPRA; Propriety; Fidelity – A Serial Fraudster is not Fit to be a Lawyer – Lawyers Must Not Date Their Clients
In May 1996, Marife Venzon engaged the legal services of Atty. Amador Peleo III for the declaration of nullity of her marriage. While the case was pending, Venzon and Peleo became romantically involved. In 1998, Venzon gave birth to their child.
In 2004, Peleo stopped providing support to Venzon and their child. In 2006, Venzon and Peleo had a compromise agreement but Peleo failed to comply with the agreement. In 2011, Venzon sought the help of the IBP. Through the IBP, a second agreement was brokered but Peleo again refused to comply with his obligations.
As a result, Venzon filed an administrative case against Peleo where she informed the IBP of the other misdeeds of Peleo such as: falsifying the birth certificate of their child, being married while having a relationship with her; filing a petition for the nullity of his own marriage in order to convince her to stay with him but he allowed the petition to be dismissed for failing to prosecute the case; having multiple extra-marital relations with other women and even siring a child with another woman other than his legal wife and other than Venzon; and securing a senior citizen card despite the fact that he is only 45 years old.
In his defense, Peleo admitted that he falsified his child’s birth certificate but only because he did not want the child to be labeled as putok sa buho; that he did not push through with the annulment of his marriage due to personal matters; and he secured a senior citizen card to avail of discount privileges.
ISSUE: Whether or not Peleo should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. His multiple infractions make him unfit to be a member of the bar.
Peleo maintained sexual relation with Venzon and several other women while his marriage with his lawful spouse was still subsisting. He made Venzon just one of his flings. His pattern of faithlessness, especially his indiscriminate liaisons, with emphasis on the fact that Venzon was his vulnerable client when he first pursued her — is a clear and present danger to the profession where utmost fiduciary obligations must be observed.
Peleo misused the legal process by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage without any serious intention to prosecute it. He clearly did it only as a ploy to convince Venzon that he was truly decided to end his marriage with his lawful wife. His excuse that his failure to prosecute was a “purely personal matter” is flimsy and was a mere ploy to serve an illicit purpose. Lawyers are ordained to avoid casual resort to judicial processes for their personal gain. Lawyers ought to foster respect for court procedures and processes and be the frontline of defense against those who wittingly and willingly misuse and/or abuse them.
Peleo’s act of falsification is a crime. That he did so to give the impression to the public that his child is of legitimate status is foisting a fraud on both the public and his child. This act shows that he is not only prone to committing a crime, something that should already impact on his fitness to remain as a lawyer, but is also a serial fraudster.
Peleo has repeatedly failed to give child support to his child. This is contrary to law. Under the Family Code, he as a parent is obliged to support and provide everything indispensable for his child’s sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation. Peleo has also displayed an abusive and rude behavior toward Venzon. He has, therefore, shown himself to be truly unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.
Peleo has been deceiving the government and private businesses by continuously availing of the Senior Citizens’ discount when he is not legally entitled thereto. This is plain dishonesty and fraud. His temerity in claiming he did it “for discount purposes only” shows an unscrupulous disregard and disrespect of the law which as a lawyer he ought to have been the first to uphold. It runs afoul of his duty to promote the dignity of the legal profession and preserve the confidence of the public in lawyers.
