G.R. No. 87211 - Mayor vs. Macaraig

Jocelyn G. Bartolome reconnected with Atty. Remegio P. Rojas in 2010 via social media. She sought his help to file an annulment for her brother, Jonas B. Guingab, for an expected cost of ₱300,000.
Atty. Rojas offered to expedite the case through a judge‐relative in Cotabato City for a judge’s “fee” of ₱150,000, accepting only camera lenses as his own compensation.
On October 21, 2010, Bartolome sent the required documents. At a later meeting she gave a ₱90,000 check “for cash” as partial payment.
Rojas attempted to encash the check in January 2011. He then assured Bartolome via SMS and social media that the annulment would complete by December 2011.
In February 2012, Rojas handed her a photocopy of a supposed “final decision,” promising the originals would follow.
By April 2013 the NSO had no record of the annulment; the decision was discovered to be fake. Bartolome and her brother suffered personal and professional setbacks.
Bartolome sent a demand letter in May 2014. On July 18, 2014, Rojas remitted ₱90,000 by money transfer.

Rojas and Bartolome were college romantically involved; upon re-establishing contact, she begged him to rescue her brother’s annulment after a bogus lawyer had scammed them. Out of pity, he agreed despite ethical reservations.
Rojas contacted a middleman, Muktar Santo, who promised to file before Judge Cader Indar for ₱180,000. He secured a down-payment of ₱90,000.
In January 2011, Bartolome delivered the check. After delays, Santo returned a decision purportedly by Judge Laureano Alzate. Rojas realized the decision was fabricated and ceased communication.
He advanced ₱10,000 of his own funds to Santo to process a certificate of finality and attempted to locate Santo thereafter.
On receipt of a demand letter in June 2014, Rojas sent back ₱90,000 from his personal funds. He later learned of Bartolome’s impending disbarment complaint.
Rojas apologized, admitted wrongdoing but denied authoring the fake decision, claiming he was also duped.

Whether Atty. Rojas violated his Lawyer’s Oath, Rules 1.01, 7.03, 10.01, and Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by participating in the procurement and presentation of a fabricated judicial decision.
Whether such misconduct warrants disbarment as the appropriate disciplinary sanction.