The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Remegio P. Rojas for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by participating in a scheme to produce a fake annulment decree. This ruling underscores the high ethical standards demanded of lawyers, emphasizing their duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system and to act with honesty and candor towards the court and their clients. The Court reiterated that any act of deceit or misrepresentation, especially involving the fabrication of legal documents, is a severe breach of professional conduct that warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

Selling False Hope: The Case of the Fabricated Annulment Decision

The case revolves around Jocelyn G. Bartolome’s complaint against Atty. Remigio P. Rojas for allegedly violating the Lawyer’s Oath and several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bartolome sought Atty. Rojas’ assistance in obtaining an annulment for her brother, Jonas B. Guingab. According to Bartolome, Atty. Rojas claimed to have connections with a judge in Cotabato and offered to expedite the process for a fee. She then paid Atty. Rojas P90,000.00, but the annulment never materialized, and the “decision” he provided turned out to be fake. This situation puts into focus the responsibilities and expected behavior of legal professionals.

Atty. Rojas, on the other hand, presented a different version of events. He claimed that he and Bartolome were previously romantically involved and that he only agreed to help her out of pity. He admitted to engaging with individuals who claimed they could facilitate the annulment through improper channels, but he stated that he, too, was a victim of a scam. Despite returning the P90,000.00 to Bartolome, the Supreme Court found Atty. Rojas guilty of serious misconduct, emphasizing that his actions tarnished the legal profession and undermined the judicial system. The Court stated that the lawyer’s admission of involvement in procuring a spurious annulment decision, regardless of his intent, was a betrayal of his sworn duty.

The very wordings and the spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath is a continuing undertaking every lawyer in the legal profession ought to live out, viz.:

Lawyer’s Oath

I do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

The Supreme Court heavily leaned on Section 20 of Rule 138, which reinforces the Lawyer’s Oath, enumerating the duties of every lawyer, including maintaining allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, respecting the courts, and employing means consistent with truth and honor. Atty. Rojas’ actions were found to have fallen far short of these standards, especially given his background as a former officer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and a former law professor. The Court underscored that his deliberate actions defiled the legal profession and demonstrated a grave failure in his duties to the profession, the society, and the courts. The court used the case to remind all legal professionals of the significance of their oath.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for legal processes. Rule 1.01 further specifies that lawyers must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Similarly, Canon 10 requires lawyers to act with candor, fairness, and good faith towards the court, as highlighted by Rule 10.01, which prohibits falsehoods or misleading the court. According to the Court, all of these rules were violated by Atty. Rojas.

In its decision, the Supreme Court drew parallels with previous cases involving the fabrication of judicial documents, such as Manalang v. Atty. Buendia, where a lawyer was disbarred for fabricating an annulment decision. The Court cited analogous cases like Madria v. Rivera and Billanes v. Latido, where lawyers were disbarred for similar misrepresentations and deceitful acts. These cases highlight a consistent stance against any form of dishonesty within the legal profession, reinforcing that the integrity of the legal system must be protected at all costs. These existing jurisprudence further bolstered the Court’s decision in this case.

Atty. Rojas’ plea for leniency, citing his good intentions and past accolades, was rejected by the Court. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege conditioned upon meeting standards of legal proficiency and morality and that it is the Court’s duty to regulate the profession to protect public welfare. The Supreme Court also noted that to grant leniency in this case would undermine the judicial system and the legal profession and contravene the Court’s duty to protect the public from errant lawyers. The Court, ultimately, held that accountability is essential for maintaining the standards of the legal profession.

The Supreme Court referenced the guidelines for judicial clemency established in Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint Against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto (In Re: Pinto), which include proof of remorse and reformation, sufficient time having elapsed since the imposition of the penalty, the age of the person asking for clemency, a showing of promise for public service, and other relevant factors. It found that Atty. Rojas had not met these guidelines, as he needed to first be held accountable for his actions. As a result, the Court ordered his disbarment from the practice of law, effective immediately, and directed that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. This decision serves as a potent reminder of the high ethical standards expected of legal professionals and the severe consequences of failing to uphold them.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Remigio P. Rojas should be disbarred for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by participating in the procurement of a fake annulment decision.
What did Atty. Rojas do that led to the disbarment complaint?	Atty. Rojas was accused of facilitating the acquisition of a fabricated annulment decision for the brother of the complainant, Jocelyn G. Bartolome, after receiving a payment of P90,000.00.
What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision to disbar Atty. Rojas?	The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Rojas primarily because he violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in deceitful conduct that undermined the integrity of the legal system.
What ethical rules did Atty. Rojas violate?	Atty. Rojas violated Canon 1 (Rule 1.01), Canon 10 (Rule 10.01) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer’s Oath by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
Did Atty. Rojas admit to the allegations against him?	Atty. Rojas admitted his involvement in the process but claimed that he, too, was scammed and that he only intended to help the complainant.
How did the Supreme Court view Atty. Rojas’ claim of good intentions?	The Supreme Court rejected Atty. Rojas’ claim of good intentions, stating that his actions, regardless of intent, tarnished the legal profession and made a mockery of the judicial system.
Were there any prior cases cited in the decision?	Yes, the Court cited similar cases such as Manalang v. Atty. Buendia, Madria v. Rivera, and Billanes v. Latido, where lawyers were disbarred for fabricating judicial documents or engaging in deceitful acts.
What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath in this case?	The Lawyer’s Oath is a continuing commitment to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and conduct oneself with honesty and fidelity to the courts and clients. The Court emphasized that Atty. Rojas’ actions directly violated this oath.
Can Atty. Rojas apply for clemency in the future?	The Court noted that Atty. Rojas had not met the guidelines for clemency, emphasizing that he must first be held accountable, acknowledge his transgressions, and serve the penalty.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to disbar Atty. Remegio P. Rojas serves as a stern warning to all members of the legal profession about the importance of upholding the highest standards of ethics and integrity. The Court’s unwavering stance against deceitful conduct underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the public and maintaining the credibility of the legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOCELYN G. BARTOLOME VS. ATTY. REMIGIO P. ROJAS, A.C. No. 13226, October 04, 2022