Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
“JOCELYN G. BARTOLOME VS. ATTY. REMIGIO P. ROJAS”, A.C. NO. 13226 (04 OCTOBER 2022):
FORMER IBP OFFICER DISBARRED FOR FAKING AN ANNULMENT COURT DECISION
In a per curiam Decision dated 04 October 2022, the Supreme Court disbarred a former officer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-South Cotabato/General Santos City Chapter for faking an Annulment court decision. The case stemmed from a complaint of one Jocelyn Bartolome who alleged that sometime in 2010, she reconnected with a college classmate, respondent Atty. Remigio Rojas, through social media. Complainant Bartolome arranged several meetings with the respondent to discuss the annulment of her brother, Jonas Guingab. Respondent Rojas supposedly represented that he has a relative judge in Cotabato and can facilitate the annulment proceedings of her brother. Complainant alleged that respondent Rojas supposedly asked for Php90,000.00 as advance payment to the judge. Later on, complainant Bartolome said that she received a call from her bank to verify the check she issued and that it was respondent Rojas who was trying to encash the same. After repeated follow-up by complainant, respondent Rojas gave him a final decision which later on she was able to verify to be spurious or fake.
For his defense, respondent Rojas alleged that he and complainant Bartolome had a relationship and that he was motivated only with good intention to help complainant Bartolome and her sibling. Respondent Rojas alleged that he was only an intermediary and that other persons were the ones who authored and orchestrated the fraudulent decision. Respondent Rojas also alleged that he returned the amount of Php90,000.00 to complainant Bartolome through a money transfer entity. Respondent Rojas also alleged that she met complainant Bartolome and the latter’s new lawyer and cousin, Atty. Melanio Elvis Balayan, and he narrated what happened. Respondent Rojas claimed that Atty. Balayan was asking him the amount of Php1,000,000.00 so that the disbarment complaint will not be filed.
The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) recommended that respondent Rojas be disbarred. The IBP Board of Governors, while adopting the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, modified the penalty to a suspension from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court imposed the penalty of disbarment against respondent Rojas.
The Supreme Court restated the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers as being sui generis. Its purpose is to “preserve the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.” In finding Atty. Rojas liable for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court held:
“Stripped of non-essentials, Atty. Rojas admitted his involvement in the reprehensible practice of perpetuating ‘annulment packages,’ albeit disavowing authorship and with the caveat that he only did so to help the complainant, and in the process, was also scammed by Santo. All these, regardless of his intention of presenting supposedly mitigating circumstances, besmirched the legal profession to the highest degree, by making a mockery of the judicial system. He simply violated his sworn oath to be honest, and to obey the law and the Constitution. It also created an impression to the public that the judicial process can be trifled with, and undermined the judicial processes of the courts.”
The Supreme Court held that respondent Rojas failed his Oath, especially considering his qualifications as a former officer of IBP South Cotabato and General Santos Chapter, former law professor, and officer of various civil organizations. The Court also held that respondent Rojas defiled the legal profession and was utterly remiss in his duties to the profession, the society, and to the courts. The Court held that respondent Rojas violated the following canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1, which requires the lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes; and Canon 10, which mandates that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court, with Rule 10.01 thereof stating that “a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.” The Court held:
“Fabricating a judicial decision or perpetuation of acts leading to such, undeniably comes within the prohibitive acts set by the CPR. Atty. Rojas, in actively and knowingly participating in the procurement of a fake decision in an annulment case undoubtedly violated the provisions of the CPR. He committed an unlawful act and disrespected the law and the legal processes. He deprived the judiciary to a rightful resolution of the case for annulment and have done so in defiance of truth, honor, and of the law.
x x x x x x x x x
Guided by the above discussion, the conclusion is thus all too clear. Atty. Rojas should be held administratively liable and must be considered unfit for the practice of law. To highlight, ‘the right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also exercise a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of public trust.’”
The Court ended that while respondent Rojas was pleading for leniency given his accolades, he must first suffer the consequences of his actions. Besides, the Court held that he failed to meet the requirements for clemency, one of which must be at least five (5) years from the imposition of the penalty as one of the yardsticks if he exhibited remorse from his transgressions.