THIRD DIVISION
CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG A.C. No. 6313
Complainant,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
- versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR.
ATTY. DIOSDADO M.
RONGCAL,
Respondent. Promulgated:
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
The
allegations raised in this complaint for disbarment are more sordid, if not
tawdry, from the usual. As such, close
scrutiny of these claims is called for.
Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe forms of
disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great caution and only in those
cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a
member of the bar is established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof.[1]
Under consideration is the
administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Catherine Joie P. Vitug
(complainant) against Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal (respondent). A classic case of “he said, she said,” the
parties’ conflicting versions of the facts as culled from the records are
hereinafter presented.
Complainant narrates that she and
respondent met sometime in December 2000 when she was looking for a lawyer to
assist her in suing Arnulfo Aquino (“Aquino”), the biological father of her
minor daughter, for support. Her former
classmate who was then a Barangay Secretary referred her to respondent. After several meetings with complainant,
respondent sent a demand letter[2] in
her behalf to Aquino wherein he asked for the continuance of the monthly child
support Aquino used to give, plus no less than P300,000.00 for the surgical operation
their daughter would need for her congenital heart ailment.
At around this point, by
complainant’s own admission, she and respondent started having a sexual
relationship. She narrates that this
twist in the events began after respondent started calling on her shortly after
he had sent the demand letter in her behalf.
Respondent allegedly started courting her, giving her financial
aid. Soon he had progressed to making
sexual advances towards complainant, to the accompaniment of sweet inducements
such as the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his
services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino. Complainant acknowledges that she succumbed to
these advances, assured by respondent’s claim that the lawyer was free to marry
her, as his own marriage had already been annulled.
On 9 February 2001, respondent
allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer[3]
(“Affidavit”) categorically stating that even as Aquino was denoted as the
father in the birth certificate[4] of
her daughter, he was, in truth, not the real father. She was not allowed to read the contents of
the Affidavit, she claims. Respondent
supposedly assured her that the document meant nothing, necessary as it was the
only way that Aquino would agree to give her daughter medical and educational
support. Respondent purportedly assured
complainant that despite the Affidavit, she could still pursue a case against
Aquino in the future because the Affidavit is not a public document. Because she completely trusted him at this
point, she signed the document “without even taking a glance at it.”[5]
On P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks
to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter. Instead of turning them over to her,
respondent handed her his personal check[6] in
the amount of P150,000.00 and promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00
soon thereafter. However, sometime in
April or May 2001, respondent informed her that he could not give her the said
amount because he used it for his political campaign as he was then running for
the position of Provincial Board Member of the 2nd District of
Pampanga.
Complainant maintains that inspite of
their sexual relationship and the fact that respondent kept part of the money
intended for her daughter, he still failed in his promise to give her a
job. Furthermore, he did not file the
case against Aquino and referred her instead to Atty. Federico S. Tolentino,
Jr. (“Atty. Tolentino”).
Sometime in 2002, assisted by Atty.
Tolentino, complainant filed a criminal case for child abuse as well as a civil
case against Aquino. While the criminal
case was dismissed, the civil case was decided on
Complainant avers that respondent
failed to protect her interest when he personally prepared the Affidavit and
caused her to sign the same, which obviously worked to her disadvantage. In making false promises that all her
problems would be solved, aggravated by his assurance that his marriage had
already been annulled, respondent allegedly deceived her into yielding to his
sexual desires. Taking advantage of the
trust and confidence she had in him as her counsel and paramour, her weak
emotional state, and dire financial need at that time, respondent was able to
appropriate for himself money that rightfully belonged to her daughter. She argues that respondent’s aforementioned
acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer as well as the Code of
Professional Responsibility (“Code”), particularly Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Rule
16.01, Rule 16.02, and Canon 7.[8] Hence, she filed the instant complaint[9]
dated
Expectedly, respondent presents a
different version. According to him,
complainant needed a lawyer who would file the aforementioned action for
support. Complainant’s former high
school classmate Reinilda Bansil Morales, who was also his fellow barangay
official, referred her to him. He admits
sending a demand letter to her former lover, Aquino,
to ask support for the child.[10] Subsequently, he and Aquino communicated
through an emissary. He learned that
because of Aquino’s infidelity, his relationship with his wife was strained so
that in order to settle things the spouses were willing to give complainant a
lump sum provided she would execute an affidavit to the effect that Aquino is
not the father of her daughter.
Respondent relayed this proposal to
complainant who asked for his advice. He
then advised her to study the proposal thoroughly and with a practical
mindset. He also explained to her the
pros and cons of pursuing the case.
After several days, she requested that he negotiate for an out-of-court
settlement of no less than P500,000.00. When Aquino rejected
the amount, negotiations ensued until the amount was lowered to P200,000.00. Aquino allegedly offered to issue four
postdated checks in equal amounts within four months. Complainant disagreed. Aquino then proposed to rediscount the checks
at an interest of 4% a month or a total of P12,000.00. The resulting amount was P188,000.00.
Complainant finally agreed to this
arrangement and voluntarily signed the Affidavit that respondent prepared, the
same Affidavit adverted to by complainant.
He denies forcing her to sign the document and strongly refutes her
allegation that she did not know what the Affidavit was for and that she signed
it without even reading it, as he gave her the draft before the actual payment
was made. He notes that complainant is a
college graduate and a former bank employee who speaks and understands English. He likewise vehemently denies pocketing P58,000.00 of the settlement
proceeds. When complainant allegedly
signed the Affidavit, the emissary handed to her the sum of P150,000.00 in cash and she allegedly
told respondent that he could keep the remaining P38,000.00, not P58,000.00
as alleged in the complaint. Although
she did not say why, he assumed that it was for his attorney’s fees.
As regards
their illicit relationship, respondent admits of his sexual liaison with
complainant. He, however, denies luring
her with sweet words and empty promises.
According to him, it was more of a “chemistry of (sic) two consensual
(sic) adults,”[11]
complainant then being in her thirties.
He denies that he tricked her into believing that his marriage was
already annulled. Strangely, respondent
devotes considerable effort to demonstrate that complainant very well knew he
was married when they commenced what was to him, an extra-marital liaison. He points out that, first, they had met
through his colleague, Ms. Morales, a friend and former high school classmate
of hers. Second, they had allegedly
first met at his residence where she was actually introduced to his wife. Subsequently, complainant called his
residence several times and actually spoke to his wife, a circumstance so
disturbing to respondent that he had to beg complainant not to call him
there. Third, he was the Punong Barangay
from 1994 to 2002, and was elected President of the Association of Barangay
Council (“ABC”) and as such was an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Guagua, Pampanga. He ran for
the position of Provincial Board Member in 2001. Thus, he was known in his locality and it was
impossible for complainant not to have known of his marital status especially
that she lived no more than three (3) kilometers away from his house and even
actively helped him in his campaign.
Respondent further alleges that while
the demand for support from Aquino was being worked out, complainant moved to a
rented house in
In August 2002, respondent finally
ended his relationship with complainant, but still he agreed to give her
monthly financial assistance of P6,000.00 for six (6)
months. Since then, they have ceased to
meet and have communicated only through an emissary or by cellphone. In 2003, complainant begged him to continue
the assistance until June when her alleged fiancé from the
Sometime in
January 2004, complainant allegedly went to see a friend of respondent. She told him that she was in need of P5,000.00
for a sari-sari store she was putting up and she wanted him to relay the
message to respondent. According to this
friend, complainant showed him a prepared complaint against respondent that she
would file with the Supreme Court should the latter not accede to her
request. Sensing that he was being
blackmailed, respondent ignored her demand.
True enough, he alleges, she filed the instant complaint.
On
Respondent, through the above mentioned acts,
clearly showed that he is wanting in good moral character, putting in doubt his
professional reputation as a member of the BAR and renders him unfit and
unworthy of the privileges which the law confers to him. From a lawyer, are (sic) expected those qualities
of truth-speaking, high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual honesty and
the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility all of which throughout
the passage of time have been compendiously described as MORAL CHARACTER.
Respondent, unfortunately took advantage
and (sic) every opportunity to entice
complainant to his lascivious hungerness (sic). On several occasions[,]
respondent kept on calling complainant and dropped by her house and gave P2,000.00 as aid while waiting allegedly for the reply of (sic) their
demand letter for support. It signals
the numerous visits and regular calls all because of [l]ewd
design. He took advantage of her seeming
financial woes and emotional dependency.
x x x x
Without doubt, a violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession justifies the impositions (sic) of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. x x
x[15]
It was then recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and that he
be ordered to return to complainant the amount of P58,000.00 within two months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the said Report and Recommendation in a Resolution[16]
dated 17 December 2005, finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence
on record and the applicable laws and rules, and “considering Respondent’s
obviously taking advantage of the lawyer-client relationship and the financial
and emotional problem of his client and attempting to mislead the Commission,”[17]
respondent was meted out the penalty of suspension for one (1) year with a
stern warning that a repetition of similar acts will merit severe
sanctions. He was likewise ordered to
return P58,000.00
to complainant.
Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning[18]
(“Motion”) dated
In a Resolution[19]
dated
While we find respondent liable, we
adjudicate the matter differently from what the IBP has recommended.
On the charge of immorality,
respondent does not deny that he had an extra-marital affair with complainant,
albeit brief and discreet, and which act is not
“so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree”[20]
in order to merit disciplinary sanction.
We disagree.
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant
must possess good moral character. Said
requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege.[21]
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives
in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.[22] The Court has held that to
justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral.[23] A grossly immoral act is one that is so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.[24]
It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act that shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.[25]
While it is has been held in
disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried
adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit
behavior,[26] it is
not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.[27] Even if not all forms of extra-marital
relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws.[28]
By his own admission, respondent is
obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which
states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. The next question to
consider is whether this act is aggravated by his alleged deceitful conduct in
luring complainant who was then in low spirits and in dire financial need in
order to satisfy his carnal desires.
While the IBP concluded the question in the affirmative, we find
otherwise.
Complainant’s allegations that she
succumbed to respondent’s sexual advances due to his promises of financial
security and because of her need for legal assistance in filing a case against
her former lover, are insufficient to conclude that complainant deceived her
into having sexual relations with her.
Surely, an educated woman like herself who was of sufficient age and
discretion, being at that time in her thirties, would not be easily fooled into
sexual congress by promises of a job and of free legal assistance, especially
when there is no showing that she is suffering from any mental or physical
disability as to justify such recklessness and/or helplessness on her part.[29] Respondent’s numerous visits and regular
calls to complainant do not necessarily prove that he took advantage of
her. At best, it proves that he courted
her despite being a married man, precisely the fact on which the finding of
immorality is rooted. Moreover, the
circumstance that he gave her P2,000.00 as aid does not induce belief that he fueled
her financial dependence as she never denied pleading with, if not
badgering, him for financial support.
Neither does complainant’s allegation
that respondent lied to her about his marital status inspire belief. We find credence in respondent’s assertion
that it was impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting
marriage. She herself admitted that they
were introduced by her friend and former classmate, Ms. Morales who was a
fellow barangay official of respondent.
She admitted that she knew his residence phone number and that she had
called him there. She also knew that
respondent is an active barangay official who even ran as Provincial Board
Member in 2001. Curiously, she never
refuted respondent’s allegations that she had met and talked to his wife on
several occasions, that she lived near his residence, that she helped him in
his campaign, or that she knew a lot of his friends, so as not to have known of
his marital status. Considering that she
previously had an affair with Aquino, who was also a married man, it would be
unnatural for her to have just plunged into a sexual relationship with
respondent whom she had known for only a short time without verifying his
background, if it were true that she preferred “to change [her] life for the
better,”[30] as
alleged in her complaint. We believe
that her aforementioned allegations of deceit were not established by clear
preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases.[31] We are left with the most logical conclusion that she freely
and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship with respondent
sans any misrepresentation or deceit on his part.
Next, complainant charged respondent of taking advantage of his legal
skills and moral control over her to force her to sign the clearly
disadvantageous Affidavit without letting her read it and without explaining to
her its repercussions. While acting as
her counsel, she alleged that he likewise acted as counsel for Aquino.
We find
complainant’s assertions dubious. She
was clearly in need of financial support from Aquino especially that her
daughter was suffering from a heart ailment.
We cannot fathom how she could abandon all cares to respondent who she
had met for only a couple of months and thereby risk the welfare of her child
by signing without even reading a document she knew was related to the support
case she intended to file. The Affidavit
consists of four short sentences contained in a single page. It is unlikely she was not able to read it
before she signed it.
Likewise
obscure is her assertion that respondent did not fully explain to her the
contents of the Affidavit and the consequences of signing it. She alleged that respondent even urged her
“to use her head as Arnulfo Aquino will not give the money for Alexandra’s
medical and educational support if she will not sign the said Affidavit of
Disclaimer.”[32] If her own allegation is to be believed, it
shows that she was aware of the on-going negotiation with Aquino for the
settlement of her claim for which the latter demanded the execution of the
Affidavit. It also goes to show that she
was pondering on whether to sign the same.
Furthermore, she does not deny being a college graduate or that she
knows and understands English. The
Affidavit is written in short and simple sentences that are understandable even
to a layman. The inevitable conclusion
is that she signed the Affidavit voluntarily and without any coercion
whatsoever on the part of respondent.
The
question remains as to whether his act of preparing and notarizing the
Affidavit, a document disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the
Code. We rule in the negative.
It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court.[33] Moreover, there is no showing that he knew for sure that Aquino is the father of complainant’s daughter as paternity remains to be proven. As complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot later blame her counsel when she experiences a change of heart. Besides, the record is bereft of evidence as to whether respondent also acted as Aquino’s counsel in the settlement of the case. Again, we only have complainant’s bare allegations that cannot be considered evidence.[34] Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough. In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duty in accordance with his oath.[35]
Complainant further charged
respondent of misappropriating part of the money given by Aquino to her
daughter. Instead of turning over the
whole amount, he allegedly issued to her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00 and pocketed the remaining
P58,000.00 in violation of his fiduciary obligation to her as
her counsel.
The IBP did
not make any categorical finding on this matter but simply ordered respondent
to return the amount of P58,000.00 to complainant. We feel a discussion is in order.
We note
that there is no clear evidence as to how much Aquino actually gave in settlement
of complainant’s claim for support. The
parties are in agreement that complainant received the amount of P150,000.00. However, complainant insists that she should
have received more as there were two postdated checks amounting to P58,000.00
that respondent never turned over to her.
Respondent essentially agrees that the amount is in fact more than P150,000.00
– but only P38,000.00 more – and
complainant said he could have it and he assumed it was for his attorney’s
fees.
We
scrutinized the records and found not a single evidence to prove that there
existed two postdated checks issued by Aquino in the amount of P58,000.00. On the other hand, respondent admits that
there is actually an amount of P38,000.00 but presented no evidence of
an agreement for attorney’s fees to justify his presumption that he can keep
the same. Curiously, there is on record
a photocopy of a check issued by respondent in favor of complainant for P150,000.00. It was only in his Motion for Reconsideration
where respondent belatedly proffers an explanation. He avers that he cannot recall what the check
was for but he supposes that complainant requested for it as she did not want
to travel all the way to
We find the
circumstances rather suspicious but evidence is wanting to sustain a finding in
favor of either party in this respect.
We cannot and should not rule on mere conjectures. The IBP relied only on the written assertions
of the parties, apparently finding no need to subject the veracity of the
assertions through the question and answer modality.
With the inconclusive state of the evidence, a more
in-depth investigation is called
for to ascertain in whose
favor the
substantial
evidence level tilts.
Hence, we are constrained to remand the case to the IBP for further
reception of evidence solely on this aspect.
We also are unable to grant complainant’s prayer for respondent to be made liable for the cost of her child’s DNA test absent proof that he misappropriated funds exclusively earmarked for the purpose.
Neither shall we entertain complainant’s claim for moral damages and attorney’s fees. Suffice it to state that an administrative case against a lawyer is sui generis, one that is distinct from a civil or a criminal action.[36] It is an investigation by the Court into the fitness of a lawyer to remain in the legal profession and be allowed the privileges as such. Its primary objective is to protect the Court and the public from the misconduct of its officers with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable men and women in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.[37] As such, it involves no private interest and affords no redress for private grievance.[38] The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the lawyer’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.[39]
Respondent’s misconduct is of considerable gravity. There is a string of cases where the Court
meted out the extreme penalty of disbarment on the ground of gross immorality
where the respondent contracted a bigamous marriage,[40]
abandoned his family to cohabit with his paramour,[41]
cohabited with a married woman,[42]
lured an innocent woman into marriage,[43]
or was found to be a womanizer.[44] The instant case can be easily
differentiated from the foregoing cases.
We, therefore, heed the stern injunction on decreeing
disbarment where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would
accomplish the end desired.[45] In Zaguirre v. Castillo,[46]
respondent was found to have sired a child with another woman who knew he
was married. He therein sought
understanding from the Court pointing out the polygamous nature of men and that
the illicit relationship was a product of mutual lust and desire. Appalled at
his reprehensible and amoral attitude, the Court
suspended him indefinitely. However, in Fr. Sinnott
v. Judge Barte,[47]
where respondent judge consorted with a woman not his wife, but there was no
conclusive evidence that he sired a child with her, he was fined P10,000.00
for his conduct unbecoming a magistrate despite his retirement during the
pendency of the case.
We note that from the very beginning of this case, herein respondent had
expressed remorse over his indiscretion and had in fact ended the brief illicit
relationship years ago. We take these as
signs that his is not a character of such severe depravity and thus should be
taken as mitigating circumstances in his favor.[48] Considering further that this is his first
offense, we believe that a fine of P15,000.00 would suffice. This, of course, is without prejudice to the
outcome of the aspect of this case involving the alleged misappropriation of
funds of the client.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
find Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and impose on him a FINE of
P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in
the future will be dealt with more severely.
The charge of misappropriation of
funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further investigation, report
and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision.
Let
a copy of this decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as an
attorney and as a member of the Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1]Buado v. Layag, A.C. No. 5182,
[2]Rollo, p. 5; The demand letter is dated
[5]
[6]
[8]The Complainant charges respondent of
violating the following rules of the Code of Conduct of Professional
Responsibility:
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 1, Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
Canon 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Canon 16, Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall
account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
Canon 16, Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall
keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of
others kept by him.
[9]Rollo, pp. 1-7.
[10]
[26]See Ui v. Atty.
Bonifacio, 388
Phil. 691 (2000); See also Concerned Employee v. Mayor, A.M. No.
P-02-1564,
[29]The operative circumstances in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 15
September 2004, 438 SCRA 306, are
markedly different from those obtaining in the present case.
[37]Roldan v. Panganiban, A.C. No. 4552,
[41]Obusan v. Obusan,
Jr., 213 Phil. 437
(1984);
[46]A.C. No. 4921,