Case Digest (G.R. No. 82421)
Facts:
In Venzon vs. Peleo, Marife A. Venzon (complainant) charged Atty. Amador B. Peleo III (respondent) before the Supreme Court with violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Section 3(d) of Republic Act 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for his refusal to provide child support to their son. In 1996, Venzon retained Peleo to file her petition for nullity of marriage. During the proceedings the parties formed an intimate relationship and on April 17, 1998, Venzon gave birth to their child. Until 2003 Peleo purportedly provided financial support, purchased real properties in Manila and Occidental Mindoro, and allowed Venzon and her son to occupy part of an apartment in Sampaloc. Thereafter he ceased visits and stopped remitting financial assistance. On December 7, 2006, he executed a Kasulatan ng Pagbibigay ng Ari-arian at Sustento committing to transfer his real properties and give monthly support, but never complCase Digest (G.R. No. 82421)
Facts:
- Parties and Charges
- Complainant Marife A. Venzon filed a Complaint-Affidavit dated December 1, 2011 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- Respondent Atty. Amador B. Peleo III was charged with:
- Violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for lawyers (engaging in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct).
- Violation of Section 3(d), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for refusal to provide child support.
- Relationship and Support Undertakings
- Timeline of personal relationship and child:
- Met in May 1996 during annulment petition proceedings.
- Judicial decree of annulment issued; by then in a serious relationship.
- Birth of their son on April 17, 1998.
- Property and support agreements:
- 2006 “Kasulatan ng Pagbibigay ng Ari-Arian at Sustento” undertaking to convey properties and furnish monthly support.
- 2011 IBP-facilitated “Kasunduan” dividing rental income and transferring real properties to their son.
- Non-compliance: respondent ceased visits and financial support, ignored pleas, blocked improvements, allowed sister to collect rent.
- Additional Allegations of Dishonesty and Immorality
- Falsification of the son’s birth certificate marriage entries.
- Maintaining simultaneous illicit affairs with multiple women and fathering another child.
- Fraudulent acquisition and use of a Senior Citizen card to avail of discounts despite being underage.
- Proceedings Before IBP and Supreme Court
- IBP NCLA letter urging support; joint meeting and drafting of Kasunduan.
- Only complainant filed a verified position paper after Court dispensed with preliminary conference.
- CBD-IBP Report (Dec. 19, 2013) found respondent liable for gross immorality; recommended two-year suspension.
- IBP Board of Governors (Resolution XXI-2014-812) adopted findings, modified penalty to disbarment.
- Supreme Court referred case for IBP investigation; thereafter, rendered decision per curiam on August 20, 2019.
Issues:
- Whether respondent’s pattern of illicit sexual relations and dishonesty violated CPR Rule 1.01, Canon 1 (unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct)?
- Whether respondent’s refusal to provide agreed child support constituted economic abuse under Section 3(d) of RA 9262?
- Whether the aggregate misconduct warranted the extreme penalty of disbarment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)