SC Strikes Out Lawyer For Evading Child Support And Falsifying Documents



Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, November 12) – A lawyer loses his license to practice law after being convicted of a number of offenses, including falsifying documents and failing to pay child support to his young son.

In a statement released on Tuesday, the Supreme Court said it had struck Amador Peleo out for “unlawful, dishonest and deceptive conduct”, in violation of the Professional Responsibility Code.

“His name was taken off the list of prosecutors,” the High Court said.

The case stems from a complaint filed in 2011 by Marife Venzon, mother of Peleo’s minor son. The Supreme Court found Peleo guilty of the following: having had sex with Venzon while still married to his wife, falsifying inscriptions on his son’s birth certificate while claiming to be married to Venzon, evading repeatedly child support and abused the legal process by not pursuing a request for cancellation, among others.

The High Court said Peleo also disrespected the Integrated Bar of the Philippines when it ignored a deal the institution brokered between him and Venzon.

Venzon was Peleo’s client in her 1996 motion to annul her marriage to her husband. In 1998, Venzon gave birth to the attorney’s son. Their relationship took a dramatic turn when Peleo stopped providing financial assistance to his son, prompting Venzon to seek help from the IBP.

Peleo also deceived the government and private companies by posing as a senior in order to get discounts.

“The confluence of the respondent’s actions … already spills over beyond what is happening in the privacy of his intimate space,” the Supreme Court’s statement read.

The High Court reminded lawyers across the country to act in a way that promotes the integrity of the legal profession.

“Indeed, public confidence in the law and in lawyers can be eroded by the irresponsible and inappropriate conduct of a member of the Bar. Therefore, every lawyer has a duty to act and behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, ”the Supreme Court said.

“The Respondent’s conduct does not help in this regard, but worse, directly encourages people to entertain themselves with jokes about lawyers and the legal profession as the butt of their unflattering jokes,” he said. added.

Article 27, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of the Court, states: “A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his duties as a lawyer by the Supreme Court for any deception, professional misconduct or other serious misconduct in such office. , grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for willful disobedience appearing as a counsel for a party to the case without authority to do so. “



Leave A Reply