Supreme Court sacks lawyer for falsifying son’s records, other offenses
Credit to Author: THE MANILA TIMES| Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:21:07 +0000
THE Supreme Court sacked a lawyer from the roll of attorneys for committing a string of offenses, including his failure to provide child support to his son of minor age and for falsifying entries in his son’s birth certificate.
The high court, in its per curium ruling, ruled that Amador B. Peleo 3rd “lost his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar”
The Supreme Court en banc found him guilty of gross unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His name was ordered stricken out of the Roll of Attorneys.
The case began in 2011 when Marife Venzon filed a complaint against Peleo with whom she had a son.
The high tribunal ruled that the sanction, which was the most extreme being imposed against Peleo, was not because of the professional fitness based on a single and one-off private event in his life, but on “the confluence of respondent’s acts which already spill beyond what happens inside the privacy of one’s intimate space.”
The Court listed six transgressions of Peleo:
1. He maintained sexual relation with Marife while still lawfully married to his wife;
2. Falsified entries in the birth certificate of his son when he claimed to be legally married to Marife;
3. Repeatedly failed to give child support to his minor child;
4. Misused the legal process by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage without any serious intention to prosecute it’s
5. Seriously disrespected the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)’s authority and dignity when he disregarded an agreement brokered by the IBP between him and Marife;
6. And deceived the government and private businesses by continuously availing of the Senior Citizens’ discount by misrepresenting himself as a senior when in truth, he was not yet 60 years old.
“Indeed, public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Hence, every lawyer is duty bound to act and comport himself or herself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Respondent’s conduct does not help in that regard, but worse, directly encourages people to entertain themselves with jokes about lawyers and the legal profession as the butt of their unflattering jokes,” the Court ruled.
Venzon met Peleo in 1996 when he handled her petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with her husband. By the time her marriage was annulled, the two were in a serious relationship and, in 1998, Venzon gave birth to a son.
Initially, Peleo was a responsible family man to Venzon and their son, even buying a two-storey apartment in Sampaloc, Manila. They also jointly purchased a lot and built a house on Facoma, Barangay Labangan, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
Peleo, however, later on no longer visited her and their son and stopped giving financial support. He also reneged on his undertaking to give the Manila and Mindoro properties to Venzon and continued to ignore her pleas for support, forcing her to seek assistance from the IBP, which facilitated a meeting between her and Peleo. The two signed a joint undertaking, which Peleo did not honor. JOMAR CANLAS