Bartolome vs. Atty. Rojas

A lawyer who knowingly participates in the procurement of a fabricated judicial decision, even if he claims good intentions or that he was himself scammed, violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and is unfit to remain in the practice of law. Disbarment is the proper penalty.

Jocelyn Guingab Bartolome and Atty. Remigio P. Rojas were college acquaintances who reconnected through social media. Bartolome's brother, Jonas B. Guingab, then based in Singapore, intended to file an annulment case to dissolve his marriage. The controversy implicated the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over attorneys under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Jocelyn Guingab Bartolome and Atty. Remigio P. Rojas had known each other since college. In 2010, Bartolome chanced upon Atty. Rojas's social media account and initiated their reconnection; they met at a coffee shop in Quezon City to catch up. During their talks, Bartolome mentioned that her brother, Jonas B. Guingab, who was then based in Singapore, intended to file an annulment case to dissolve his marriage.

Sometime in October 2010, Bartolome and Atty. Rojas met again, and she narrated in detail the intended annulment. She mentioned that other lawyers had told her the case would require around P300,000.00. Atty. Rojas then mentioned a relative in Cotabato who was a presiding judge and represented that he could arrange to expedite the case for a fee of P150,000.00 for the judge. He also boasted of several successful annulment cases and said he would ask only for camera lenses for his photography hobby. Bartolome contacted her brother in Singapore; Atty. Rojas and Guingab talked and agreed that Atty. Rojas would handle the annulment. On October 21, 2010, Bartolome sent through courier to Atty. Rojas's address in Koronadal, Cotabato City the necessary documents, namely Guingab's Birth Certificate and Marriage Certificate. In another meeting, upon Atty. Rojas's insistence, Bartolome handed him a check payable to the order of "cash" in the amount of P90,000.00 as "paunang bayad" for the judge. On January 30, 2011, Bartolome received a call from her bank requesting confirmation of an encashment of the check she issued; she noted that Atty. Rojas was attempting to encash it. Through subsequent SMS and private messaging, Atty. Rojas guaranteed that the nullity case would be completed in eight months. By September 2011, Bartolome constantly requested updates, and Atty. Rojas promised the decision would be available in December 2011.

In February 2012, in Tomas Morato, Quezon City, Atty. Rojas handed Bartolome a photocopy of the "final decision" in the annulment case. She asked for the original but was told it would be mailed to her and to Iloilo City where Guingab was married. In January 2013, Atty. Rojas updated Bartolome that the National Statistics Office (NSO) was about to receive the "Annotation of Marriage." By April 2013, Bartolome requested from the NSO an "Advisory on Marriage Document" pertaining to the dissolved marriage of her brother. The NSO had no records of the annulment and informed her that Guingab was still validly married to his wife. Bartolome attempted to confront Atty. Rojas, but he was no longer communicating with her. She informed her brother, who was distressed because his career plans and application for permanent residency in Singapore were derailed. Her lawyer cousin found that the "decision" Atty. Rojas had handed to her was fake. In May 2014, a demand letter was sent to Atty. Rojas calling out the spurious "decision" and seeking the return of the P90,000.00 she paid, plus legal interests. On July 18, 2014, Bartolome was notified by a money transfer company that Atty. Rojas sent P90,000.00 to her in compliance with the demand letter. The ordeal allegedly caused Bartolome and Guingab undue stress and anxiety.

Atty. Rojas averred that Bartolome's factual narrations were inaccurate. He insisted that he and Bartolome were romantically involved in college for five years and rekindled their friendship when they reconnected on social media, during which Bartolome shared personal woes, troubles in her marriage, and strained relations with her mother and siblings. According to Atty. Rojas, Bartolome told him that her brother was mad at her for botching his annulment case because she had contracted a bogus lawyer who gave them a fake annulment "decision." She asked him to handle the case instead, saying she learned from court employees and lawyer friends that a certain judge in Cotabato City grants annulment cases for a fee without the physical presence of the parties. Atty. Rojas refused out of ethical considerations and suggested referring the case to her lawyer cousin. They continued communicating, and Bartolome repeatedly urged him to take the case; he refused and cited that Cotabato City was not safe for their law office because they were handling the controversial Maguindanao massacre cases.

In October 2010, they met again in Manila. Bartolome begged for help because Guingab was in danger of losing his employment since he had been living-in with another Filipina without being married, and because he could not afford losing his job as he was supporting the medications of his son who was suffering from a rare disease. Atty. Rojas took pity and agreed, promising to connect with a certain Juris C. Solilapsi, whose marriage had been annulled in a court in Cotabato City. Atty. Rojas got in touch with Solilapsi and learned that a certain Muktar Santo had processed and lodged the annulment before Judge Cader P. Indar at the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, Branch 14. Atty. Rojas contacted Santo, who advised that he needed to see the documents and that the case would cost a discounted fee of P180,000.00. Atty. Rojas relayed this to Bartolome, who instructed him to close the deal. Bartolome informed him the money was available, but Atty. Rojas advised that only a 50% down payment was required and the rest would be due once the "decision" was out. On January 11, 2011, Bartolome invited him to the baptism of her "adopted daughter," whose birth certificate she simulated; he admonished her but was ignored. In the same event, she handed him a check for P90,000.00 and dropped him off at the bank to encash it. At the bank, the teller informed him there was a problem with the check; Bartolome was notified, came to the bank, sorted it out, and he received the amount.

In February 2011, Solilapsi introduced Atty. Rojas to Santo. Santo explained that the fee covered everything, including the drafting of the petition for annulment, and all they had to do was sign it. Atty. Rojas informed Santo that he had only half of the requested fee because Guingab was low on funds after the botched annulment. Santo said he would first consult Judge Indar if the arrangements were acceptable. After three months, Atty. Rojas received word from Santo that Judge Indar accepted the case despite not having received full payment. On July 11, 2011, Atty. Rojas sent Guingab a copy of the petition for annulment and instructed him to sign the verification page. By the last week of July 2011, Atty. Rojas, together with Solilapsi and other companions, met Santo at the RTC of Cotabato City to file the petition and give the down payment. Santo instructed his staff to file the petition at Branch 15, and Atty. Rojas was merely handed the receiving copy. In January 2012, Santo called Atty. Rojas demanding the balance of P90,000.00 since the court had already rendered a "decision." Atty. Rojas responded that he needed to get a copy of the judgment first so he could present it to Bartolome. A few days later, he received the copy and was surprised that it was issued by Judge Laureano Alzate and not Judge Indar. He knew Judge Alzate personally and was aware that he was a straight and honest magistrate. Atty. Rojas then realized they had been scammed and did not know what to do; he also avoided Bartolome while Santo kept pressuring him to complete the payment. To buy time, Atty. Rojas asked Santo's party to secure a "Certificate of Finality" and to facilitate registration of the judgment with all the Local Civil Registry concerned while the balance was being raised. He gave Santo P10,000.00 from his own money and informed Bartolome of the advance. Atty. Rojas finally met Bartolome in Manila and handed her the "decision" without disclosing that the judgment was fabricated. He covered up and told her it would take time before the "decision" got to the NSO since it was still being registered before the concerned Local Civil Registries; he advised her to check with the NSO, hoping she would uncover the scam. On July 31, 2012, Solilapsi died. Santo sent his men to collect the balance from Atty. Rojas, but Atty. Rojas informed them that he already knew their scam. He asked for the return of the P100,000.00 they collectively paid, informed Bartolome, and then stopped communicating with her. On June 26, 2014, Atty. Rojas received a demand letter from Bartolome's lawyer cousin, Atty. Melanio Elvis Balayan. Atty. Rojas tried to locate Santo in Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat to no avail. He sent Bartolome P90,000.00 from his own funds through a money remittance center and notified Atty. Balayan. On July 31, 2014, a friend told Atty. Rojas that Atty. Balayan had inquired of him and was preparing a disbarment case. Atty. Rojas met with Atty. Balayan to discuss and possibly halt the complaint. On August 19, 2014, Atty. Rojas, Bartolome, and Atty. Balayan met in Mandaluyong City. Atty. Rojas explained what really happened. When Bartolome went to the restroom, Atty. Balayan informed him that they were filing a disbarment complaint unless he paid them P1,000,000.00. Atty. Rojas asked for time to decide. Eventually, he decided not to accede to the demand, and the disbarment complaint followed. Atty. Rojas admitted having transgressed the sanctity of the legal profession and apologized, but maintained that he acted out of good intention to help Bartolome. He claimed that if he had acted with malice, he would have conducted his actions clandestinely and would not have returned Bartolome's monies under his own name as sender; he also said the return of the money was not an admission of authorship of the spurious decision.

• Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Bartolome alleged that Atty. Rojas violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01, 7.03, and 10.01, and Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Fabrication and Misrepresentation: Bartolome claimed that Atty. Rojas represented he could expedite her brother's annulment for a fee to a judge, accepted P90,000.00 as "paunang bayad," and later handed her a fake "final decision" of annulment.
• No Actual Annulment: Bartolome asserted that the NSO had no records of the annulment and that Guingab remained validly married, showing the decision was spurious.
• Demand and Damages: Bartolome sought return of the P90,000.00 plus legal interests and alleged that the ordeal caused her and Guingab undue stress and anxiety.

• Inaccurate Facts and Good Intentions: Atty. Rojas averred that Bartolome's factual narrations were inaccurate and maintained that he agreed to help only out of pity and good intention, not malice.
• No Authorship of Fake Decision: He disowned authorship of the spurious "decision" and claimed he was also scammed by Santo; he thought Judge Indar would handle the case but the decision was issued by Judge Alzate.
• Return of Money: He returned P90,000.00 from his own funds under his own name as sender, which he argued was not an admission of authorship of the fake decision.
• Leniency and Clemency: He admitted having transgressed the sanctity of the legal profession and apologized, but invoked his good intentions, remorse, character and reputation, and family needs in seeking leniency and absolution.
• Extortion Claim: He claimed that Atty. Balayan demanded P1,000,000.00 in exchange for not filing the disbarment case, which he refused.

• Disbarment for Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Whether Atty. Rojas should be disbarred for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Liability for Fabricated Judicial Decision: Whether Atty. Rojas is administratively liable for knowingly participating in the procurement of a fabricated annulment decision.
• Clemency: Whether Atty. Rojas's plea for leniency and absolution should be granted.

• Disbarment for Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Yes. Atty. Rojas was disbarred for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility; Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court authorizes removal or suspension for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or violation of the oath.
• Liability for Fabricated Judicial Decision: Yes. Knowingly participating in the procurement of a fake annulment decision is unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and violates Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR.
• Clemency: No. Atty. Rojas did not meet the guidelines for judicial clemency; he must first be held accountable, acknowledge his transgressions, and suffer the penalty.

• Disbarment for Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis; the primary objective is public interest, and the real question is whether the attorney remains a fit person to be allowed the privileges of the profession. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows disbarment for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or violation of the Lawyer's Oath. Atty. Rojas admitted involvement in the reprehensible practice of perpetuating "annulment packages," disavowing authorship and claiming good intention and that he was scammed by Santo. Regardless of intention, his acts besmirched the legal profession, made a mockery of the judicial system, violated his sworn oath to be honest and to obey the law and the Constitution, and created the impression that the judicial process can be trifled with. The Lawyer's Oath is a continuing undertaking; Section 20, Rule 138 enumerates the duties of attorneys. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 require candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court and prohibit falsehood or misleading the Court by artifice. Fabricating a judicial decision or acts leading to such are prohibited. Atty. Rojas actively and knowingly participated in the procurement of a fake decision, violated the CPR, and deprived the judiciary of a rightful resolution of the annulment case. The Court relied on Manalang vs. Atty. Buendia, Madria vs. Rivera, Billanes vs. Latido, Tan vs. Diamante, and Taday vs. Apoya, Jr., where lawyers were disbarred for similar acts. The right to practice law is a privilege, not a natural or constitutional right; it is limited to persons of good moral character and partakes of the nature of a public trust. Atty. Rojas failed his Oath, especially considering his qualifications as a former IBP officer, former law professor, and officer of various civic organizations.
• Liability for Fabricated Judicial Decision: The Court found that Atty. Rojas's active and knowing participation in the procurement of a fake decision in an annulment case undoubtedly violated the CPR. He committed an unlawful act and disrespected the law and the legal processes. He deprived the judiciary of a rightful resolution of the annulment case and acted in defiance of truth, honor, and law. His defenses of good intention and being scammed did not negate liability; a lawyer remains bound by the ethical canons and cannot shift blame to clients or others.
• Clemency: Atty. Rojas admitted his infractions but invoked leniency, humanitarian reasons, and his accolades. The Court denied his supplication. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and reserved only for those who meet the twin standards of legal proficiency and morality; it is imbued with public interest. The Court cannot give a free pass, as doing so would make a travesty of the judicial system and the legal profession. The Court cited the judicial clemency guidelines in Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint Against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto (In Re: Pinto): proof of remorse and reformation; sufficient time lapsed from imposition of penalty; age showing productive years; showing of promise and potential for public service; and other relevant factors. Except for compelling reasons, a five-year minimum period must pass before dismissal or disbarment may be the subject of clemency. Atty. Rojas did not meet these guidelines; he must first be held accountable, acknowledge his transgressions, and suffer the penalty.

• Disciplinary Proceedings Are Sui Generis — Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they are investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Their primary objective is public interest, and the real question is whether the attorney remains a fit person to be allowed the privileges of the profession. The Court applied this to justify examining Atty. Rojas's fitness and imposing disbarment.
• Grounds for Disbarment or Suspension Under Section 27, Rule 138 — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court, or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney without authority. The Court found Atty. Rojas's participation in the fake decision to fall within these grounds.
• Lawyer's Oath as a Continuing Undertaking — The Lawyer's Oath requires a lawyer to do no falsehood, not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, not to give aid or consent to the same, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with good fidelity to the courts and clients. Atty. Rojas violated this continuing undertaking.
• Duties of Attorneys Under Section 20, Rule 138 — An attorney must maintain allegiance to the Republic, support the Constitution, obey the laws, observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers, counsel only just actions, employ only means consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead a judge by artifice or false statement of fact or law. Atty. Rojas failed these duties.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. "Unlawful" conduct is contrary to, prohibited or unauthorized by, in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law; "dishonest" means a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; "deceitful" conduct involves fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device used upon another ignorant of the true facts to his prejudice. Atty. Rojas's knowing participation in the fake annulment decision fell within these prohibitions.
• Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. Rule 10.01 prohibits a lawyer from doing any falsehood, consenting to the doing of any in Court, or misleading or allowing the Court to be misled by any artifice. Atty. Rojas violated these duties by participating in the procurement of a fabricated judicial decision.
• Fabrication of a Judicial Decision — Fabricating a judicial decision, or perpetuating acts leading to such fabrication, is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The Court applied this doctrine to Atty. Rojas, who knowingly participated in procuring a fake annulment decision.
• Practice of Law as a Privilege, Not a Natural or Constitutional Right — The right to practice law is a privilege or franchise limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified; it presupposes integrity, legal standing, and attainment and partakes of the nature of a public trust. Atty. Rojas's conduct showed he no longer met the twin standards of legal proficiency and morality.
• Judicial Clemency Guidelines — Before judicial clemency may be granted, there must be proof of remorse and reformation; sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty; the person's age must show productive years ahead; there must be a showing of promise and potential for public service; and there must be other relevant factors. Except for compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances, a five-year minimum period must pass before dismissal or disbarment can be the subject of clemency. Atty. Rojas did not meet these guidelines.

• "It is settled in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Its primary objective is public interest, "and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon members of the Bar to account for [their] actuations as [officers] of the Court with the end in view of preserving 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."" — This passage defines the sui generis nature of disciplinary proceedings and the public-interest objective that governs the Court's power to disbar or suspend lawyers.
• "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." — This is the ratio decidendi on why Atty. Rojas's participation in the fake annulment decision constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• "The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved only for those who meet the twin standards of legal proficiency and morality. It is so delicately imbued with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of this Court to control and regulate in order to protect and promote public welfare." — This passage states the standard for continued membership in the Bar and supports the denial of Atty. Rojas's plea for leniency.
• "Considering the above requirements, We find that Atty. Rojas has not met the guidelines for this Court to consider clemency. He must first be held accountable, acknowledge his transgressions, and suffer the penalty therefor." — This passage applies the judicial clemency guidelines and explains why Atty. Rojas was not entitled to clemency at the time of the Decision.

• Manalang vs. Atty. Buendia, A.C. No. 12079, November 10, 2020 — The Court cited this as controlling analogous precedent; a lawyer was disbarred for fabricating a judicial decision granting annulment, and the defense that he was only an intermediary was rejected.
• Madria vs. Rivera — Cited in Manalang; the lawyer was disbarred for fabricating a decision and certificate of finality, with a forged signature, violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the CPR.
• Billanes vs. Latido — Cited as similar; a lawyer was disbarred for misrepresentation and deceitful acts in an annulment case, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.
• Tan vs. Diamante — Cited as similar; a lawyer was disbarred for falsifying a court order, with the Court finding his acts reprehensible and his violations flagrant.
• Taday vs. Apoya, Jr. — Cited as similar; a lawyer was disbarred for authoring a fake court decision in an annulment case, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.
• Reyes vs. Atty. Nieva, 794 Phil. 360, 379-380 (2016) — Cited for the sui generis nature of disciplinary proceedings and the public-interest objective of preserving the purity of the legal profession.
• Petelo vs. Rivera, A.C. No. 10408, October 16, 2019 — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and reserved for those who meet the twin standards of legal proficiency and morality.
• Saladag vs. Atty. Astorga, 748 Phil. 1, 13 (2014) — Cited for the definitions of "unlawful," "dishonest," and "deceitful" conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.
• Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint Against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto (In Re: Pinto), A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289, February 15, 2022 — Cited for the guidelines on judicial clemency and the five-year minimum period before dismissal or disbarment may be the subject of clemency.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended for deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court, or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney without authority. The Court applied this provision as the basis for disbarring Atty. Rojas.
• Lawyer's Oath — The lawyer swears to do no falsehood, not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, not to give aid or consent to the same, and to conduct himself with good fidelity to the courts and clients. Atty. Rojas violated this oath.
• Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates the duties of attorneys, including maintaining allegiance, supporting the Constitution, obeying the laws, observing respect due to courts and judicial officers, counseling only just actions, employing only means consistent with truth and honor, and never misleading a judge by artifice or false statement. Atty. Rojas failed these duties.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Atty. Rojas's conduct violated this canon.
• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found Atty. Rojas's knowing participation in the fake annulment decision to be unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful.
• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. Atty. Rojas violated this duty.
• Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Atty. Rojas violated this rule by participating in the procurement of a fabricated judicial decision.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, Dimaampao, and Marquez, JJ., concur. Inting, J. Lopez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., were on official business.