G.R. No. L-3918 - People vs. Juan Erra, defendant-appellant

Complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali filed a Complaint-Affidavit on 22 October 1999 before the Supreme Court against respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres, her brother-in-law, charging him with presentation of false testimony, participation in forgery, and gross misrepresentation in violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The dispute concerns the intestate estate of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting, consisting of:

One half of Lot 1586, San Francisco de Malabon Estate (43,908 sqm), covered by TCT No. T-6203;
Lot 1603, San Francisco de Malabon Estate (16,073 sqm), covered by TCT No. T-6425;
Lot 1605, San Francisco de Malabon Estate (22,131 sqm), covered by TCT No. T-1869.

On 11 November 1986, respondent allegedly participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against the false perjury of his wife Felicisima and sister-in-law Miriam in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate covering Lot 1586, causing its transfer and sale to Antel Holdings Inc. for ₱1,195,400.
On 17 March 1995, he allegedly participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against the forgery of complainant’s signature in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate covering Lot 1603, enabling its transfer and sale to Antel Holdings Inc.
In LRC Rec. No. 5964 (Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of TCT No. T-1869 for Lot 1605), he allegedly made gross misrepresentation and presented false testimony that only Felicisima and Marcelina were heirs, facilitating sale of the lot to Antel Holdings Inc. for ₱2,213,100.
On 20 November 1996, he allegedly made false representations to the buyer to secure full payment for Lot 1605 before the reconstitution order was obtainable, even using Philippine National Bank stationery.

Respondent filed a Comment denying culpability and asserting good-faith reliance on family agreements, oversight, and pro-forma conformity.
On 14 June 2000, the Supreme Court referred the case to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
On 9 January 2003, Investigating Commissioner San Juan found violations of Canon 1 Rules 1.01 & 1.02 and Canon 10 Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending disbarment.
On 21 June 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but reduced the penalty to a six-year suspension.
The Supreme Court, by the present resolution, adopted the Commission’s findings in full and imposed disbarment.

Did respondent’s participation in perjury, forgery, false testimony, and misrepresentation violate his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
What disciplinary sanction is appropriate for the respondent’s misconduct?