THE Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer after finding him guilty of gross negligence for causing a 10-year delay in the institution of probate proceedings.
In a 13-page ruling promulgated on November 5, 2024 but only made public recently, the Court en banc held that lawyer Leonardo Aurelio failed to comply with his duty under the Rules of Court as an executor of the will of his mother-in-law, to present the same before the court within 20 days after her death and to inform the court in writing of his acceptance of the trust or his refusal to accept it.
The en banc added that even if the other heirs could have filed for probate, this does not excuse Aurelio from carrying out his duty under the Rules.
“The Rules of Court granting the heirs’ concurrent standing to petition the will’s allowance do not negate the respondent’s duty to present it before the court. Thus, he cannot escape culpability for his 10-year delay in the presentation of the will to the probate court by arguing that he deferred the filing of the probate case to give the heirs the chance to file said petition themselves,” the en banc explained as it dismissed Aurelio’s arguments that the responsibility does not rest solely with him since there are other heirs who could have filed it as well.
“In this case, the respondent’s omission is tantamount to gross negligence in the performance of duty, which is considered a serious offense under Canon VI, Section 33 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,” the en banc added.
In imposing the penalty of disbarment, the en banc said it has taken into consideration the fact that Aurelio is a repeat offender, as he had been previously suspended for six months for forum shopping or by filing multiple cases on a similar issue in different venues.
With the disbarment, the en banc ordered the Office of the Bar Confidant to strike Aurelio’s name from the Roll of Attorneys.
In the same ruling, the en banc dismissed another ground for gross immorality in the complaint against Aurelio over his alleged illicit affair, saying that the complaint was filed not by the aggrieved spouse or victim but rather his brothers-in-law and sister-in-law.
But it clarified that it is not meant to condone marital infidelity or apply to all cases involving immorality, but rather to limit legal standing to file such a complaint only to the aggrieved spouse and victims in cases of grossly immoral conduct that involves marital infidelity, concubinage, or adultery.
