9/16/25, 9:26 PM Maria Victoria L. Yao, Gerardo A. Ledonio, and Ramon A. Ledonio vs. Atty. Leonardo A.
Aurelio
Title
Maria Victoria L. Yao, Gerardo A. Ledonio, and Ramon A. Ledonio vs. Atty. Leonardo A.
Aurelio
Case Decision Date
A.C. No. 12354 Nov 5, 2024
A disbarment case against Atty. Aurelio for gross immorality and negligence as executor
of a will concluded with his disbarment due to neglect of duty and violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Jur.ph - Case Digest (A.C. No. 12354)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Parties and Nature of Complaint
The complainants, Maria Victoria L. Yao, Gerardo A. Ledonio, and Ramon A. Ledonio
(collectively Yao et al.), filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty.
Leonardo A. Aurelio for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Accountability.
The complaint sought Atty. Aurelio’s disbarment due to: (a) an illicit affair resulting in a
child born out of wedlock during his marriage to their sibling, Ma. Esperanza A.
Ledonio-Aurelio; and (b) delayed filing for the probate of their mother Emma Alo-
Ledonio’s last will and testament, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Support and Allegations
Complainants attached Sophia Ann Marie Calixto’s Birth Certificate showing Atty.
Aurelio’s signature and acknowledgment of paternity.
They also attached the probate petition and alleged that Atty. Aurelio informed them
that their mother left no property for them but left him a 5,000 sqm lot in Las Piñas
(the Ayala property).
The Ayala property was subject to a quieting of title case where complainants were
declared in default due to Atty. Aurelio’s failure to notify them.
They also cited Atty. Aurelio’s prior six-month suspension for filing multiple suits
against Yao’s husband and urged the Court to consider this in penalty determination.
Respondent’s Position
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/yao-v-aurelio?q=12345 1/3
9/16/25, 9:26 PM Maria Victoria L. Yao, Gerardo A. Ledonio, and Ramon A. Ledonio vs. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio
Atty. Aurelio argued no cause of action exists as complainants were not prejudiced;
rather, they dishonored an innocent child and woman.
He admitted a single mistake in extramarital relations but with consent and
forgiveness of his wife.
Denied any attorney-client relationship with complainants regarding the neglect
allegations.
Asserted no obligation to inform all heirs of the will’s existence during Emma’s lifetime
and deferred to the heirs to file the probate petition.
He maintained the complainants’ default in the Ayala case occurred before his
engagement and accused complainants of harassment.
Investigation and Recommendations
The Commission on Bar Discipline’s investigating commissioner recommended
dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, finding no attorney-client relationship, and
that the extramarital child did not constitute gross immorality warranting sanction.
The IBP Board of Governors reversed the finding, holding Atty. Aurelio liable for
violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, recommending a three-month suspension for gross
immorality.
The Board noted respondent’s remorse, family harmony, and financial support for the
child but recognized the offense as a violation of moral standards.
Court Proceedings
Both parties filed motions for reconsideration and oppositions which the IBP Board
denied as pro forma.
Atty. Aurelio filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, relying on findings
of no attorney-client relationship and mitigation of immorality due to forgiveness.
Complainants emphasized the violation of fidelity, prior infractions, and aggravating
circumstances.
Supreme Court’s Considerations
The newly promulgated Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)
was applied.
The Court recognized disbarment cases as sui generis, aimed at protecting public
interest and preserving confidence in the profession and rule of law.
It stressed that charges of gross immorality require nuanced and secular standards,
avoiding religious or arbitrary morality imposition.
Noted that complaints for immorality must be initiated by victims (betrayed spouse,
paramour, or children) to protect familial privacy.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/yao-v-aurelio?q=12345 2/3
9/16/25, 9:26 PM Maria Victoria L. Yao, Gerardo A. Ledonio, and Ramon A. Ledonio vs. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio
Found the complaint not filed by such victims and thus declined to entertain the gross
immorality charge.
Found no negligence as counsel for complainants in the Ayala case due to lack of
evidence of attorney-client relationship.
However, found respondent guilty of gross negligence as executor for a 10-year delay in
probate presentation, violating duties and Rules of Court.
Acknowledged aggravating circumstance due to respondent’s prior six-month
suspension for unrelated misconduct and tendency to retaliate legally against
complainants.
Issues:
Whether Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio is guilty of committing a grossly immoral act by
siring a child out of wedlock during his marriage.
Whether respondent was negligent as counsel representing the complainants in the
quieting of title (Ayala) case.
Whether respondent was negligent as executor of Emma Alo-Ledonio’s last will and
testament for delay and non-compliance in probate proceedings.
Ruling:
(Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
(Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
(Subscriber-Only)
Note: AI summaries may not capture all details. Please refer to full text for complete accuracy.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/yao-v-aurelio?q=12345 3/3
