A.C. No. 13475 [Formerly CBD 16-5224]. October 04, 2022.
JUDY GABAWAN DELA CRUZ, RODOLF JOHN G. DELA CRUZ, AND RODOLF JAMES DELA CRUZ, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. GLEN ERIC PERALTA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainants secured a final judgment for damages against Lito Gitalan, Jr. following a criminal conviction. During execution proceedings in 2014, respondent Atty. Glen Eric Peralta, acting for Gitalan, tendered partial payment and promised to settle the balance. He later falsely informed the presiding judge that full payment had been made, presenting a falsified acknowledgment receipt purportedly signed by a complainant. Gitalan testified that he had earlier given respondent a manager’s check for the full judgment amount, which respondent acknowledged with a notarized receipt.
Respondent denied all allegations. He claimed he never received the check, did not notarize the receipt, and was out of town during the transaction. He shifted blame to his secretary, who allegedly executed an affidavit admitting she received and encashed the check. Respondent also alleged the complaint was an afterthought and filed only after he failed to meet complainants’ alleged extortionate demand for a higher sum. He eventually paid the remaining balance in 2015.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting the penalty of disbarment.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty and disbarment is the appropriate penalty. The Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. The legal logic rests on the conclusive evidence of respondent’s deceitful and fraudulent conduct, which constitutes a gross violation of his fundamental duties as a lawyer.
The Court found respondent’s defenses untenable and his actions demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty. First, he misappropriated the manager’s check entrusted by his client for payment to the judgment creditors, a clear breach of trust and a dishonest act. Second, he compounded this by forging a complainant’s signature on an acknowledgment receipt and having it notarized to falsely prove payment, which is an act of falsification and an abuse of his notarial commission. Third, he attempted to deceive the court by falsely representing to the judge that payment was complete. This conduct directly violates Canon 1 (upholding the law), Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful and dishonest conduct), Canon 10 (observing candor and fairness to courts), and Canon 16 (holding client funds with accountability) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, including unwavering integrity. Respondent’s acts—misappropriation, forgery, falsification of a public document, and deception of a court—are so grievous that they reveal a character unfit for the legal profession. His attempt to blame his secretary was a mere afterthought that further evidenced his lack of candor. While he later paid the balance, this did not extinguish his ethical breaches. Given the gravity and multiplicity of the violations, which strike at the very heart of legal ethics and public trust, the penalty of suspension is insufficient. Only disbarment can preserve the integrity of the Bar. Accordingly, respondent was disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.