Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 257 views

    Vitug vs. Rongcal Digest

    Uploaded by

    Camille Ira Co
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2006 between Catherine Joie P. Vitug and Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal. Vitug filed an administrative complaint to disbar Rongcal. Vitug and Rongcal had a brief sexual relationship after meeting regarding a legal case. Vitug alleged she was deceived and funds intended for her daughter were misappropriated. Rongcal expressed remorse for the relationship. While Rongcal's actions showed immorality, the Court determined disbarment was too severe given it was his first offense and he had ended the relationship. The Court imposed a fine of 15,000 pesos on Rongcal rather than suspension or disbarment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vitug vs. Rongcal Digest

    Uploaded by

    Camille Ira Co
    257 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2006 between Catherine Joie P. Vitug and Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal. Vitug filed an administrative complaint to disbar Rongcal. Vitug and Rongcal had a brief sexual relationship after meeting regarding a legal case. Vitug alleged she was deceived and funds intended for her daughter were misappropriated. Rongcal expressed remorse for the relationship. While Rongcal's actions showed immorality, the Court determined disbarment was too severe given it was his first offense and he had ended the relationship. The Court imposed a fine of 15,000 pesos on Rongcal rather than suspension or disbarment.

    Original Description:

    Vitug vs. Rongcal Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2006 between Catherine Joie P. Vitug and Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal. Vitug filed an administrative complaint to disbar Rongcal. Vitug and Rongcal had a brief sexual relationship after meeting regarding a legal case. Vitug alleged she was deceived and funds intended for her daughter were misappropriated. Rongcal expressed remorse for the relationship. While Rongcal's actions showed immorality, the Court determined disbarment was too severe given it was his first offense and he had ended the relationship. The Court imposed a fine of 15,000 pesos on Rongcal rather than suspension or disbarment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    257 views1 page

    Vitug vs. Rongcal Digest

    Uploaded by

    Camille Ira Co
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2006 between Catherine Joie P. Vitug and Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal. Vitug filed an administrative complaint to disbar Rongcal. Vitug and Rongcal had a brief sexual relationship after meeting regarding a legal case. Vitug alleged she was deceived and funds intended for her daughter were misappropriated. Rongcal expressed remorse for the relationship. While Rongcal's actions showed immorality, the Court determined disbarment was too severe given it was his first offense and he had ended the relationship. The Court imposed a fine of 15,000 pesos on Rongcal rather than suspension or disbarment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    4/7/2019 Vitug vs. Rongcal [A.C. No. 6313.

    September 07, 2006] | Legem Advocatus

    Legem Advocatus

    "AN ADVOCATE IS NOT ONE WHO SPEAKS OF REFORMS BUT ONE WHO MADE REFORMS
    HAPPEN." – ENGRJHEZ®

    Vitug vs. Rongcal [A.C. No. 6313. September 07, 2006]

    16 AUG
    Ponente: TINGA, J.

    FACTS:

    [T]he administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Catherine Joie P. Vitug (complainant) against Atty.
    Diosdado M. Rongcal (respondent) was brought to the Supreme Court upon dissatisfaction with the
    recommendation of IBP Investigating Commissioner of six (6) month suspension from the practice of law.

    Complainant and respondent first met when the former was looking for a lawyer to assist her in suing
    Arnulfo Aquino, the biological father of her minor daughter, for support. After several meetings,
    complainant and respondent had started sexual relationship. Complainant claimed that she was deceived
    by the respondent on promise of support and on the signing of Affidavit of Disclaimer. Respondent
    denied luring her with sweet words and empty promises, as he later ended his relationship with
    complainant, and strongly refuted her allegation that she did not know what the said Affidavit is all
    about. Complainant further charged respondent of misappropriating part of the money obtained from
    Aquino as it was intended for her daughter.  Respondent admitted that there was actually a difference in
    amount but somewhat lesser than that alleged by the complainant, but his presumption was that he can
    keep the same as part of attorney’s fees.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Atty. Rongcal’s immorality will warrant suspension or disbarment from practice of law.

    HELD:

    NO. Respondent was only imposed fine of P15,000.00.

    RATIO:

    The Supreme Court heeded the stern injunction on decreeing disbarment where any lesser penalty, such as
    temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. [F]rom the very beginning of this case,
    respondent had expressed remorse over his indiscretion and had in fact ended the brief illicit relationship
    years ago.  These were signs that his was not a character of such severe depravity and thus should be
    taken as mitigating circumstances in his favor. Considering further that this was his first offense, a fine
    of P15,000.00 would suffice, without prejudice to the outcome of the aspect of this case involving the
    alleged misappropriation of funds of the client.

    https://engrjhez.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/vitug-vs-rongcal-a-c-no-6313-september-07-2006/ 1/2

    You might also like