EN BANC

[A.C. No. 9354. August 20, 2019.]

[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3655]

MARIFE A. VENZON, complainant , vs. ATTY. AMADOR B.

PELEO III, respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

The Case
Respondent Atty. Amador B. Peleo III is charged with violation of Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Section 3
(D) of Republic Act 9262 (RA 9262) or the Anti-Violence against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004 for his alleged refusal to provide child support to
his son, a minor.
The Complaint-Affidavit
In her Complaint-Affidavit dated December 1, 2011, Marife Venzon
essentially alleged:
Sometime in 1996, respondent frequented San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro to attend to the cases of his former townmates in Cavite. 1 On May
6, 1996, she met respondent whom she engaged to handle her petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage with her husband. In no time, she got
close to respondent as he really exerted effort to earn her trust. 2 By the
time the judicial decree 3 of annulment of her marriage came out, they were
already in a serious relationship. On April 17, 1998, she gave birth to
respondent's son. 4
In the beginning and up until 2003, respondent responsibly acted as a
family man. Sometime in 1997, he purchased a two-storey apartment in
Sampaloc, Manila. He leased it out but reserved a space at the ground floor.
It was converted into a bedroom where she and their son stayed whenever
she had their son checked-up at the UST Hospital. 5 In 1999, they jointly
purchased a residential lot in Facoma, Brgy. Labangan, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro where they built a house for her and their son. 6
During the succeeding years, however, respondent no longer visited
them as frequently as before. Then he stopped giving them financial support
and even ignored her pleas to give it back to them. 7
On December 7, 2006, respondent drew an undertaking captioned
"Kasulatan ng Pagbibigay ng Ari-Arian at Sustento," 8 viz.:
Dapat mabatid ng lahat:
Ako, Amador B. Peleo III, Pilipino, nasa hustong gulang at may
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 tirahan sa Pob. 3, Gen. E. Aguinaldo, Cavite, ay nagsabi ng mga
sumusunod:
Na ako ay nagmamay-ari ng mga sumusunod:
1. Lupa at bahay na naroroon sa Facoma, Labangan, San Jose, Occ.
Mindoro;
2. Isang apartment sa Maynila sa 850 Don Quijote St., Sampaloc,
Manila.
Na ang mga nabanggit na ari-arian ay kusang loob kong
ibinibigay kay Niño Amador Venzon Peleo III, anak ko kay Marife A.
Venzon ng San Jose Occidental, Mindoro;
Na aking ding bibigyan ng suporta buwan-buwan panggastos and
nasabi kong anak at susuportahan ko rin ang pag-aaral niya
hanggang sa makatapos ng kolehiyo.
Sa katunayan ng lahat ng ito ay inilagda ko ang aking pangalan
ngayon December 7, 06 dito sa San Jose, Occ. Mindoro.
(Sgd.) Amador B. Peleo III
xxx xxx xxx
Conforme: Marife A. Venzon
But respondent did not fulfill his undertaking and continued to ignore
her pleas for support. She was, thus, constrained to seek assistance from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
IBP NCLA-Senior Deputy Atty. Dante Mercado wrote 9 respondent
urging him to at least provide his child's basic needs so he may avoid liability
for economic abuse under RA 9262.
During their meeting at the IBP office, she and respondent jointly drew
a Kasunduan, 10 viz.:
Dapat mabatid ng lahat:
Ang kasunduan ito ay ginawa at pinagtibay nina:
AMADOR B. PELEO III, Pilipino, naninirahan sa Gen. Aguinaldo, Cavite
at siyang tatawagin Unang Panig;
at
MARIFE VENZON, Pilipino, naninirahan sa San Jose, Occ. Mindoro at
siyang tatawagin na Ikalawang Panig:
PINAGKASUNDUAN
1. Ang Unang Panig ay hahatian (50:50) si Niño Amador V. Peleo
sa renta sa bahay na naroroon sa 850 Don Quijote St., Sampaloc,
Manila;
2. Sina Niño Amador Peleo at kanyang ina na si Marife Venzon
lamang ay binibigyan ko ng pahintulot na siyang tumira sa isang
maliit sa kuarto sa silong ng apartment;
3. Ang 900 metro kuadrado lupa na naroroon sa Bo. Labangan,
San Jose, Occ. Mindoro at galing kay Teodolfo Talactac ay ibinibigay
ko kay Niño Amador V. Peleo ang ganap na pagmamay-ari;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]

 4. Bibigyan ko si Niño Amador V. Peleo ng karampatan kaparte
kung mabenta ang nasabing apartment.
Sa katunayan ng lahat ng ito ay inilagda namin ang aming pangalan
ngayon Hunyo 28, 2011 dito sa Pasig City.

(Sgd.) Amador
(Sgd. Marife Venzon)
Peleo III

Ikalawang Panig Unang Panig

But again respondent did not honor his undertaking. She recalled that
right after they met at the IBP office, she received respondent's text: "Wala
ka ni katiting na karapatan para ipaayos ang kwarto. Kung ano ang ayos
niyan ngayon ay hindi mo ito pwedeng baguhin o galawin at hindi kita
pinahihintulutan na ayusin, baguhin, maglagay ng anumang improvement
diyan sa kwarto otherwise you will be criminally liable, kuha mo at alisin mo
na rin diyan ang sabi mong gamit mo."
On September 30, 2011, she sent copy of the "Kasunduan" to Eusebia
Jacob, a tenant in respondent's apartment. The "Kasunduan" informed
Eusebia Jacob that half of the monthly rent on the apartment would go to
her. She learned, however, that respondent's sister, Romana Peleo
Bellostrino was already collecting the rent.
Aside from his deliberate refusal to provide support for their son, she
knew of respondent's propensity for dishonesty, unethical conduct, and
immorality, viz.:
1. In filling up the blank spaces on his son's Certificate of Live Birth,
he indicated that they got married on May 1, 1996 in Manila when in truth
they never got married. In fact, they only met for the first time on May 6,
1996.
2. Respondent was legally married to Erlinda Sierra when he
intimately got involved with her. He remained a married man before, during,
and after he sired a son with her. He led her to believe he was determined to
sever his marital ties with his wife by filing a petition for judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage. As it tuned out, he never actually meant it to be. He
never prosecuted the case until it got dismissed for failure to prosecute,
thus:
ORDER
It appearing that this case has been pending since July 31,
1998 without petitioner exerting any effort to prosecute this case.
ACCORDINGLY, and pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the
Revised Rules of Court, this case is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED. 11

3. He had been having illicit affairs with many other women,e.g., —

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 a seamstress from Bacoor, Cavite, a housemaid from Calintaan, Occidental
Mindoro, and another woman from Capiz with whom he fathered a child
named Amadora.
4. He fraudulently secured a Senior Citizen (SC) card although he
was only forty five (45) years old. He unabashedly availed of the twenty
percent (20%) discount privilege on plane tickets for his out-of-town court
hearings.
Respondent's Comment
In his Comment 12 dated June 8, 2012, respondent denied that he was
not giving child support. He claimed that from 2009 until 2011, complainant
had been receiving the monthly apartment rent of P12,000.00. On October
2011, in lieu of the cash allowance she was demanding, he gave her a 900-
square meter property within a subdivision in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
As for complainant's other accusations, he basically riposted:
1. He filled out his son's birth certificate indicating that he and
complainant got married on a certain date and place because he did not
want his son to be humiliated or called "putok sa buho."
2. He did not intend to deceive complainant when he filed the
petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with his first wife. The
reason why he failed to prosecute the case was a purely personal matter.
3. He secured a Senior Citizen card solely to avail of the discount
privileges granted to cardholders.
By Resolution 13 dated August 1, 2012, the Court referred the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation or decision within ninety (90) days. The scheduled
preliminary conference was dispensed with following several cancellations.
The parties were required instead to file their verified position papers. Only
complainant complied.
Report and Recommendation of the Committee on Bar Discipline-
IBP
(CBD-IBP)
In its Report and Recommendation 14 dated December 19, 2013, the
CBD-IBP, through Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera found respondent liable
for gross immorality and violation of Canon 1 of the CPR for Lawyers.
Respondent was found to have failed to live up to the exacting standards of
the legal profession by having sexual relation with a woman other than his
wife, aggravated by his utter refusal to give support to the child he fathered
with his paramour. The CBD-IBP recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
Under Resolution No. XXI-2014-812, the IBP Board of Governors
resolved to adopt the CBD-IBP's Report and Recommendation pertaining to
respondent's liability for gross immorality. As for the penalty, it held that
respondent should be disbarred, thus:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution as Annex "A," and considering
Respondent's act of gross immorality, and his falsification of public
documents to feign his marriage to Complainant and acquire a Senior
Citizen Card with intent to use it and avail of the 20% discount, Atty.
Amador B. Peleo III is hereby DISBARRED and his name stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys.
Ruling
We adopt the factual findings, legal conclusions, and penalty
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.
Respondent is charged with violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, 15 forbidding lawyers from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The specific acts he allegedly
committed are as follows:
1. Maintaining a sexual relation with complainant when his
marriage with his spouse had not been terminated.
2. Maintaining several other faithless relations with other women
while in permanent relations with his spouse and complainant.
3. Misusing the legal process of filing a petition for nullity of
marriage to convince complainant that he was truly determined to end his
marriage with his wife.
4. Falsifying entries in his son's birth certificate.
5. Failing to give child support.
6. Seriously disrespecting the authority and dignity of the IBP when
he disregarded an agreement brokered by the IBP between him and
complainant.
7. Deceiving the government and private businesses by availing of
the Senior Citizens' card to which he was not entitled.
Clearly, we are not deciding respondent's professional fitness on the
basis of a single and one-off private event in his life. As a rule, we do not
interfere with the privacy right to make decisions on who a lawyer would
want to pair himself or herself with. It is the lawyer's decision to make. As
stated in a Concurring Opinion in Estrada v. Escritor , A.M. No. P-02-1651,
August 4, 2003:
Clearly, "immorality" as a category of offense for the dismissal
of a public servant or a judicial employee should not be construed as
any violation of moral prescriptions. Otherwise, this tack would only
embroil this Court in the eternal debate on divergent moral theories
and systems. For a public servant, the pivotal question in determining
administrative culpability ought to be whether the challenged
conduct was ultimately prejudicial to public service. We cannot snoop
into bedrooms and peer under bed covers without running afoul of
every person's constitutionally protected individuality. Quite
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 interestingly, in American jurisprudence, conduct affecting one's
personal character has been excluded from the ambit of actionable
behavior. It stressed: "But conduct amounting to mere irregularity or
merely affecting one's character as a private individual is not usually
covered by the term 'malconduct'."
It is more than a matter of sympathy; it is a clear does of justice
indeed to conclude that respondent did not fail to live up to her
ethical obligations; in conscience and in law, this Court should be the
last, and never, to cast the stone and stamp the badge of infamy
upon her legitimate desire for personal security and safety that in
reality has bothered no one, least of all, our own judicial institution.
What we have here is the confluence of respondent's acts which
already spill beyond what happens inside the privacy of one's intimate
space. For respondent's acts here do not just concern him as a private
individual. They have crossed the line between what essentially belongs to
an individual's right to privacy on one hand, and a pattern of conduct
symptomatic of a clear disregard for the rights of others by misapplying his
knowledge of the law and his profession as a lawyer, on the other. This is the
nexus that makes us act. We are taking objective action because
respondent's pattern of conduct has already impacted on his professional
fitness and status as a member of the Bar. Consider:
First. Respondent maintained sexual relation with complainant and
several other faithless contemporaneous relations while his marriage with
his lawful spouse was still subsisting. He was not just in love and lonely and
in good faith to establish another solid foundation for a life-long partnership
when he paired with complainant. He made complainant just one of his
flings. His pattern of faithlessness, especially his indiscriminate liaisons, with
emphasis on the fact that complainant 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. The victims here are the
spouse and the institution of marriage.
In the following cases, respondent lawyers were ordered disbarred for
engaging in illicit relations with women, albeit, they were still lawfully
married to their respective spouses:
I n Guevarra v. Eala , 16 respondent was found guilty of grossly
immoral conduct and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 17 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
I n Ecraela v. Pangalangan , 19 respondent was also found guilty of
gross immorality and of violating Section 2, Article XV of the 1987
Constitution, and Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 20 Canon 7, Rule 7.03, 21 and Canon
10, Rule 10.01 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
I n Dantes v. Dantes , 23 respondent was held guilty of, and ordered
disbarred for, grossly immoral conduct.
Finally, in Bustamante v. Alejandro , 24 respondent was held liable
for gross immorality.
Second. Respondent misused the legal process by filing a petition for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 declaration of nullity of marriage without any serious intention to prosecute
it. He clearly did it only as a ploy to convince complainant 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. In any event, if truly he
did not use the same as a mere ploy to serve an illicit purpose, he should
have formally withdrawn it. As it was, however, he just left it there to clog
the already clogged docket of the court and waited till it was dismissed.
Lawyers are ordained to avoid casual resort to judicial processes for
their personal gain. As officers of the court, they 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. Court processes
are, and should forever be, available only for the redress of genuine
grievances and should not be used to suit the whims of unscrupulous
individuals. By his actions, respondent undeniably misused and abused the
court processes to suit his whims. Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 10,
Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, viz.:
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH
TO THE COURT
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Third. Respondent falsified the place and date of marriage entries in
the birth certificate of his son. Falsification is a crime. Falsification of a public
document aggravates this crime. That he did so to give the impression to the
public that his son is of legitimate status is foisting a fraud on both the
public and his son. 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.
Time and again, lawyers have been reminded of the oath they took,
upon admission to the legal profession, to do no falsehood. This solemn
promise does not and will never waver. No amount of justification will suffice
to excuse a lawyer from any act of falsification. As held in Apolinar-Petilo
v. Atty. Maramot: 25
The respondent cannot be relieved by his justifications and
submissions. As a lawyer, he should not invoke good faith and good
intentions as sufficient to excuse him from discharging his obligation
to be truthful and honest in his professional actions. His duty and
responsibility in that regard were clear and unambiguous. In Young v.
Batuegas, 23 this Court reminded that truthfulness and honesty had
the highest value for attorneys, thus:
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon
his admission to the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct
himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to his clients. He should bear in mind that as
an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case
and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct
conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to
expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing
and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn
duty to defend his client's rights and is expected to
display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause,
his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. 24
Fourth. Respondent has repeatedly failed to give child support to his
son, a minor. This is contrary to law. Under the Family Code 26 he as a parent
is obliged to support and provide everything indispensable for his son's
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and
transportation. 27 Too, he has the duty to instruct his children according to
right precepts and good example and to give them love, companionship, and
understanding, as well as moral and spiritual guidance. 28 Respondent failed
in this respect. Not only has he evaded his duty to support his son and
deprived him of the love and affection he deserves from him as his father, he
has also displayed an abusive and rude behavior toward his son's mother.
He has, therefore, shown himself to be truly unbecoming of a member of the
legal profession.
Fifth. Respondent seriously disrespected the IBP's authority and
dignity when he disregarded an agreement brokered by the IBP between him
and complainant. He defied the undertaking which he voluntarily made
before an officer of the IBP. His lack of respect for the authority of the IBP
constitutes disrespect for this Court as well. For the IBP is integrated by the
Supreme Court to assist in the administration of justice, elevate the
standards of the legal profession, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibilities more effectively. 29 Canon 7 of the CPR mandates:
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.
Sixth. Respondent has been deceiving the government and private
businesses by continuously availing of the Senior Citizens' discount when he
is not legally entitled thereto. He admitted that he applied for, and was
issued, a Senior Citizen card. He has been using it to enjoy twenty percent
(20%) discount on specific goods and services. This he did by
misrepresenting himself as sixty (60) years old when in truth, he was only
then forty-five (45). This is plain dishonesty and fraud, again, a transgression
of his series of transgressions of his lawyer's oath to do no falsehood. His
temerity in claiming he did it "for discount purposes only" 30 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.
By these six (6) counts of unlawful, immoral, dishonest, or deceitful
conduct, respondent has lost his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
He is ordered disbarred.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 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.
31 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.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Amador B. Peleo III is found GUILTY of
GROSS UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST and DECEITFUL CONDUCT in violation
of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
ORDERED DISBARRED from the practice of law, his name, STRICKEN OUT
the Roll of Attorneys.
Let copy of this Decision be: (1) entered into the personal records of
Atty. Amador B. Peleo III with the Office of the Bar Confidant; (2) furnished to
all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (3) circulated by the
Court Administrator to all the courts in the country for their information and
guidance.
This Decision takes effect immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, A.B. Reyes, Jr., J.C.
Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting and Zalameda, JJ.,
concur.
Bersamin, * C.J. and Gesmundo, ** J., are on official leave.
Caguioa, J., is on leave.

Footnotes
* On Official Leave.
** On Official Leave.
1. Rollo , p. 1.

2. Id.
3. Id. at 7-9.
4. Id. at 2.
5. Id.
6. Id.

7. Id. at 2-3.
8. Id. at 20.
9. Rollo , p. 21.
10. Id. at 22-24.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 11. Order dated September 13, 1999; id. at 19.
12. Rollo , pp. 33-34.
13. Id. at 35.
14. Id. at 120-122.

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

16. 555 Phil. 713 (2007).

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

  Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

xxx xxx xxx

18. 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.

xxx xxx xxx

  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.
19. 769 Phil. 1, 20 (2015).

20. Id.
21. Id.
22. CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
  Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.

xxx xxx xxx

23. 482 Phil. 64 (2004).
24. 467 Phil. 139 (2004).
25. A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018, citing 451 Phil. 155, 161-162 (2003).
26. Art. 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are
obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding
article:
  The spouses; Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
  Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate
children of the latter;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
   Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate
children of the latter; and
  Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.

27. Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling,
clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation in keeping with
the financial capacity of the family.
28. See Narag v. Atty. Narag, 353 Phil. 643, 660-661 (1998).

29. Sec. 2, Art. 1, By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

30. Comment on Complaint Affidavit, rollo, pp. 33-34.
31. See Alex Ong v. Atty. Elpidio D. Unto , 426 Phil. 531, 540-541 (2002) (citations
omitted).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]