BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO 

VITTORIO C. ROMERO VS. ATTY. LEO C. ROMERO, A.C. NO. 9272 (CBD CASE NO. 12-2503), JULY 29, 2025: LAWYER DISBARRED FOR GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIS OWN BROTHER

This case stems from a family dispute involving the complainant Vittorio C. Romero and his brothers Atty. Leo C. Romero and David C. Romero involving their family properties and the custody of their mother Aurora. Vittorio filed a disbarment complaint against brother Atty. Leo for various acts committed against him and their mother. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent Atty. Leo to have committed three (3) separate offenses which merited suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years for each offense.

First, respondent Atty. Romero was found to have  committed gross misconduct for attempting to bribe a private prosecutor and the private complainant in a rape case for an aggregate amount of Php10,000,000.00. The complainant Vittorio executed an affidavit that he accompanied his brother Atty. Leo when the latter tried to settle a rape case against a known politician in the province of Laguna. 

Second, respondent Atty. Leo sent text messages showing bitter disdain against complainant Vittorio due to the latter’s gender identity. As stated in complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint, the text messages show that the respondent, “detests and hates (him), his own brother, so much that (Atty. Leo) minced no words in humiliating and threatening (him), trying to break his spirit.” In his Comment, respondent Atty. Leo admitted that he filed a petition for guardianship over Vittorio, “in an honest generous effort to prevent him from doing further damage and injury to himself and to other persons including his siblings and relatives and to treat and confine him in a medical institution for possible infection of the dreaded HIV and/or AIDS illnesses which may have adversely affected his physical, mental, and spiritual being and to treat his mental and psychological conditions and, possibly drug-related addictions.”

The Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Leo has subjected his own brother Vittorio to verbal and psychological abuse and violence because of the latter’s gender identity which makes the former administratively liable for gender-based sexual discrimination under Section 33 (k), Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Third, respondent Atty. Leo was held administratively liable for the wrongdoings committed against their own mother. As the Supreme Court quoted English writer and novelist Agatha Christie, “A mother’s love for her child is like nothing else in the world. It knows no law, no pity. It dares all things and crushes down remorselessly all that stands in its path.” The Supreme Court affirmed the findings that Aurora suffered abuses from his child Atty. Leo for no mother would expose his own son for administrative liability if she were not telling the truth. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Leo committed grossly immoral conduct under Canon VI, Section 33(f) of the CPRA as his actions amount to utter disrespect to the very person who gave birth to him, raised him, and sent him to law schools in abroad for him to better his career as a lawyer all to secure for himself his mother’s assets and properties upon her passing. 

Considering that the aggregate suspension of respondent Atty. Leo is for six (6) years, the Supreme Court imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment pursuant to Section 40, Canon VI of the CPRA.