BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
Maria Victoria L. Yao, et al. vs. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio, A.C. No. 12354, November 5, 2024: Disbarment Complaint for Gross Immoral Conduct Involving Marital Infidelity, Concubinage or Adultery Must Be Filed by the Aggrieved Spouse and Victims
In the case of Maria Victoria L. Yao, et al. vs. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio, A.C. No. 12354, November 5, 2024, a Complaint for Disbarment was filed against respondent Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio for: (1) gross immoral conduct for having an illicit affair and siring a child out of wedlock during respondent’s marriage with the complainants’ sibling, Ma. Esperanza A. Ledonio-Aurelio; and (2) for gross negligence for filing for probate of the Last Will and Testament of the complainants’ mother, Emma Alo-Ledonio, before the Metropolitan Trial Court which was delayed for ten (10) years and was eventually dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
While respondent was eventually disbarred on the second charge for gross negligence, we discuss the dismissal of the first charge wherein the Supreme Court held that it would refrain from entertaining complaint for gross immoral conduct involving marital infidelity, concubinage or adultery if not filed by the aggrieved party or the victim:
“In this connection, the State must not excessively intrude into the personal relationships of lawyers as it may unduly affect their professional standing. Thus, complaints for immorality must not be entertained unless initiated by the victims. These are ‘the betrayed spouse, the paramour who has been misled, or the children who have to live with the parent’s scandalous indiscretions.’
The essence of an administrative case involving gross immorality, in relation to marital relations, are allegations of illicit affairs and allegations that are undoubtedly and deeply private that only these victims ‘can credibly recount as borne from their own personal knowledge and firsthand experience.’ Further, these issues ‘. . . will put relationships and families in a vulnerable state.’ Unlike any other person whose concern may be relegated to a mere curiosity, academic, or sentimental desire, the interest of these victims is actual and material.
Thus, ‘in administrative cases that ostensibly implicate private familial and marital matters, the Court is called upon to take into consideration the very deep sensitivities attendant to such cases that bear down on the victims.’
x x x x x x x x x
The offense of a respondent in an administrative case involving grossly immoral conduct may involve marital infidelity, concubinage, or adultery. In this regard, the policy of affording the aggrieved spouse the decision to seek judicial redress under these circumstances is in recognition of and respect for familial and marital privacy. This Court thus defers to the choice and wisdom of these victims in deciding whether to institute an administrative case against the respondents.
Given that the complaint in the case at bar was not instituted by the victims, this Court will refrain from entertaining the charge of gross immorality and will proceed to rule on the other two grounds for disbarment.”
However, the Supreme Court clarified that it does not condone marital infidelity. It wants to limit, however, the legal standing to file a complaint for gross immoral conduct that involves marital infidelity, concubinage or adultery to the aggrieved spouse and victims.