Roan Amor Dator-Miles vs Vanessa Joyce Monge

A.C. No. 14378 – Legal Ethics – Grounds for Disbarment – Dishonesty

In 2019, Atty. Vanessa Joyce Monge convinced her friend Roan Amor Dator-Miles to invest in Inceptigon. Monge told Roan that she is connected with Inceptigon, a company engaged in the production of electronic vehicles; that they will be rolling out the jeepney modernization program; that an e-bus worth Php530k will earn Roan Php80k a month; that the government will even ensure that investors will be paid Php10k a month – due to Monge’s representations, Roan made the investment by handing Php350k yo Monge.

Meanwhile, Monge also convinced Roan to co-sign her student loan in the USA. As a result, a US bank released money to Roan.

Unfortunately, no jeepney modernization program rolled out and Monge defaulted in paying on her student loan which resulted in Roan having to make the monthly payments in order to maintain her credit rating.

Roan also found out that Monge is no longer connected with Inceptigon and she also defrauded Inceptigon.

Despite several demands, Monge failed to pay Roan. She even stopped communicating with Roan. As a result, Roan filed a disbarment case against Monge.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monge must be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. Monge committed dishonesty (false representation) and had violated CANON II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. She lured Roan into an investment scam and had committed false misrepresentations with her student loan.

Monge misrepresented herself to Roan when she claimed that she is connected to Inceptigon when in fact she is not. Monge claimed that Inceptigon authorized her to gather investments but in reality she was not. Worse, she took Roan’s money but never used it for the suppose investment.

Monge seriously breached the trust reposed in her by Roan not only as a lawyer but also as a friend. She betrayed Roan when she failed to make monthly payments on her student loan which constrained Roan to make payments for Monge just so she could keep her good credit rating in the USA.

Monge’s defense that the issue raised by Roan occurred in the USA hence outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is without merit. So is Monge’s argument that the complained acts had nothing to do with her legal profession.

Monge’s dishonest acts render her unfit to remain as a member of the bar. Monge also demonstrated lack of remorse when she characterized Roan’s complaint as a mere unfortunate misunderstanding. She continued to fail to make payments and had demonstrated her lack of accountability.

Read full text.