A.C. No. 13226 - Bartolome vs. Rojas

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13226)

Factual Background (Complainant’s Allegations)

Bartolome alleges she reconnected with Atty. Rojas in 2010 and, during subsequent meetings, sought his help to secure an annulment for her brother, Jonas Guingab. She was told by others the cost would be about P300,000, but Atty. Rojas represented he could “expedite” the case by using a relative who was a presiding judge in Cotabato for a reduced judge fee (initially quoted at P150,000), and he purportedly told her that success required only a camera lens as consideration. Bartolome sent birth and marriage certificates (October 21, 2010) and, at Atty. Rojas’s insistence, handed him a P90,000 check payable to “cash” as an advance. Atty. Rojas later attempted to encash that check. He assured swift resolution, and in February 2012 handed Bartolome a photocopy of a “final decision,” promising the original would be mailed. When Bartolome later sought NSO certification (April 2013), the NSO had no record of the annulment; counsel discovered the decision was fabricated. After a demand through counsel in May 2014, Bartolome was notified in July 2014 that P90,000 had been sent to her by Atty. Rojas. Bartolome complains she and her brother suffered stress and damage because the annulment was never validly obtained.

Respondent’s Version (Key Defenses and Narrative)

Atty. Rojas admits involvement but offers a different framing: he initially refused to handle the matter for ethical reasons but later agreed after Bartlett’s repeated pleas and assertions that her brother faced employment jeopardy. He states he worked through contacts—Solilapsi and Santo—who instructed him the total fee would be P180,000 and that Santo would prepare and lodge the petition. Atty. Rojas recounts being introduced to Santo in February 2011, delivering a receiving copy of the petition in July 2011, and later being told in January 2012 that a decision had been rendered. Upon receiving the purported decision, he realized it bore the name of Judge Alzate (a straight magistrate) and suspected he and the client were scammed. He claims he attempted remediation: advancing P10,000 of his own funds to Santo, asking for registration and a certificate of finality to be procured, and ultimately sending P90,000 to Bartolome in July 2014 from his personal funds after receiving a demand letter. He further alleges that, when confronted on August 19, 2014, counsel for Bartolome and Bartolome demanded P1,000,000 as consideration for not filing a disbarment complaint; he refused, and the disbarment complaint followed. He admits wrongdoing in the sense of poor judgment and violating professional sanctity but denies authoring the spurious decision and contends his motives were to help.

Investigatory and IBP Recommendations

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Investigating Commissioner concluded respondent was primarily responsible for procuring a fake decision and recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the factual findings but modified the penalty to a five-year suspension, noting respondent’s purported remorse and admission of guilt; the Board tasked the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) to investigate the extortion claim (the alleged P1,000,000 demand) and to gather information about the illegal production of fake decisions to be submitted to the Court Administrator. Atty. Rojas moved for reconsideration pleading mitigation and his civic and professional contributions.

Issue Presented

Whether Atty. Remegio P. Rojas should be disbarred for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01, 7.03, 10.01, and Canon 15, given the evidence that a fabricated judicial decision was presented in furtherance of an alleged “annulment package.”

Legal Standards and Disciplinary Framework

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and focus on public interest and whether an attorney remains fit to exercise the privileges of the bar. Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court authorizes removal or suspension of attorneys for “deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct” and for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath. Section 20 of Rule 138 enumerates duties of attorneys (allegiance to the Constitution, respect due to courts, counsel only actions appearing just, employ means consistent with truth and honor, etc.). The Lawyer’s Oath requires honesty, obedience to law, and refusal to consent to falsehood in court. The CPR rules cited (Rules 1.01 and 10.01 among others) prohibit unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and specifically bar lawyers from committing, consenting to, or allowing falsity or artifices to mislead the court. These standards guide the Court’s fitness and sanction analysis.

Court’s Analysis and Findings on Conduct

The Court found that—regardless of claimed motives—Atty. Rojas’s conduct besmirched the legal profession and undermined the judiciary. Fabricating or procuring a fabricated judicial decision and participating in an “annulment package” are contrary to the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR. The Court emphasized that “unlawful,” “dishonest,” and “deceitful” conduct encompass acts that deceive or mislead another party to their prejudice; a lawyer who knowingly participates in or procures fraudulent judicial instruments acts in reckless or conscious ignorance of truth and thus violates professional standards. In the Court’s view, even if Atty. Rojas was himself defrauded by intermediaries (Santo and associates), his active role in arranging and advancing the transaction, handling client funds, presenting a purported judgment and failing to ensure its authenticity, and the pattern of assurances and representations to the client established culpability. The Court relied on the bar’s duty to preserve public confidence and found that respondent’s actions created an impression that judicial processes could be circumvented for a fee.

Precedents and Analogous Authorities Considered

The Court relied on controlling precedents where lawyers were disbarred for fabrication or simulation of court orders and related deceit—cases such as Manalang v. Atty. Buendia, Madria v. Rivera, Billanes v. Latido, Tan v. Diamante, and Taday v. Apoya, Jr. In those authorities, presenting fabricated judicial decisions, simulating court papers, or otherwise deceiving clients and courts were grounds for disbarment because such misconduct betrays the client’s trust, undermines the courts,

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13226)

Case Caption, Citation, and Disposition

Case style: Jocelyn G. Bartolome, complainant, vs. Atty. Remegio P. Rojas, respondent.
Court: Supreme Court, En Banc.
Case number and date reference: A.C. No. 13226; Decision promulgated October 04, 2022 (per curiam).
Final disposition: Respondent Atty. Remegio P. Rojas DISBARRED from the practice of law, effective immediately upon receipt of the Decision; name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Administrative directives: Copies of the Decision to be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant for respondent’s records, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts.

Facts — Complainant’s Version (Jocelyn G. Bartolome)

Longstanding acquaintance and college relationship with Atty. Rojas; reconnected via social media in 2010 and met in Quezon City.
Bartolome told Atty. Rojas in 2010 that her brother Jonas B. Guingab (then in Singapore) intended to file an annulment; she had been told by other lawyers that the cost would be around P300,000.00.
Atty. Rojas represented he had a relative presiding as a judge in Cotabato and offered to “arrange to expedite the case” for P150,000.00 for the judge; he boasted of prior successful annulment cases and requested only camera lens as compensation from Guingab for his photography hobby.
Bartolome contacted her brother; Atty. Rojas and Guingab agreed that Atty. Rojas would handle the annulment.
On October 21, 2010, Bartolome couriered Guingab’s birth and marriage certificates to Atty. Rojas in Koronadal, Cotabato City.
At Atty. Rojas’ insistence, Bartolome handed him a check payable to “cash” for P90,000.00 as “paunang bayad” for the judge.
On January 30, 2011, Bartolome’s bank notified her that someone attempted to encash the check; she discovered Atty. Rojas was the person attempting encashment.
Atty. Rojas guaranteed completion of the nullity case in eight months; by September 2011 he promised decision by December 2011.
In February 2012, Atty. Rojas handed Bartolome a photocopy of a “final decision” and promised originals would be mailed; he later claimed registration steps were ongoing.
By April 2013, NSO records showed no annotation or record of annulment; Guingab remained validly married.
Investigation by Bartolome’s lawyer cousin revealed that the “decision” given to her was fake.
Bartolome sent a demand letter in May 2014 asking for return of P90,000.00 plus interest and calling out the spurious decision.
On July 18, 2014, Bartolome was notified by a money transfer company that Atty. Rojas had sent P90,000.00 to her in compliance with the demand letter.
Bartolome and Guingab alleged undue stress and anxiety resulting from the ordeal and the derailment of Guingab’s career plans and Singapore permanent residency application.

Facts — Respondent’s Version (Atty. Remegio P. Rojas)

Relationship history: respondent and Bartolome were romantically involved in college and had a five‑year relationship; they rekindled contact via social media.
Bartolome confided many personal matters to respondent, including prior problems and a botched annulment allegedly caused by a bogus lawyer who had given a fake decision.
Initially refused to handle Guingab’s case on ethical grounds and recommended referral to Bartolome’s lawyer cousin.
Pressure and entreaties from Bartolome persisted; in October 2010 he took pity and agreed to try to assist, promising to contact a certain Juris C. Solilapsi (who had an annulment in Cotabato City) as a lead.
Solilapsi identified Muktar Santo (referred to as “Santo”) who lodged the annulment before Judge Cader P. Indar at RTC Cotabato City, Branch 14; Santo quoted a discounted total fee of P180,000.00 and required a 50% down payment.
Bartolome gave respondent a check for P90,000.00 at a baptism event on January 11, 2011; respondent encashed the check after the bank initially notified of a problem and Bartolome resolved the issue.
In February 2011, respondent met Santo and learned Santo would draft the petition and ask the parties only to sign; Santo said he would consult with Judge Indar regarding arrangements.
After three months respondent was informed Judge Indar accepted the case despite incomplete payment; respondent forwarded a copy of the petition to Guingab to sign verification on July 11, 2011.
Filing occurred in the last week of July 2011; petitioner’s petition was filed at Branch 15 and respondent received a receiving copy rather than controlling the filing process.
In January 2012 Santo demanded the balance of P90,000.00, claiming the court had rendered a “decision”; respondent saw a copy indicating Judge Laureano Alzate as the issuing judge and, knowing Judge Alzate’s integrity, suspected a scam.
Respondent realized they had been scammed, paid Santo P10,000.00 of his own money to procure a “Certificate of Finality” and to facilitate registration while raising the balance, and then avoided Bartolome while Santo pressured him for payment.
Respondent handed Bartolome the “decision” in Manila without disclosing it was fabricated, and advised her to check with the NSO; he intended that she might uncover the scam herself.
Solilapsi died on July 31, 2012; respondent confronted Santo’s men and asked for return of the P100,000.00 they had collectively paid; thereafter he stopped communicating with Bartolome.
On June 26, 2014, respondent received a demand letter from Bartolome’s counsel Atty. Melanio Elvis Balayan; respondent attempted to locate Santo but could not and then sent P90,000.00 from his own funds through a remittance center and notified Atty. Balayan.
A meeting on August 19, 2014 with Bartolome and Atty. Balayan: respondent related his version; Atty. Balayan allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 to avert filing a disbarment complaint; respondent declined to accede to the extortion demand.
Respondent admitted transgressing professional sanctity, apologized, and maintained he did not author the spurious decision and that his intent was to help Bartolome; he pointed to returning the money under his own name as evidence of good faith.

Procedural History and Recommendations by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

Investigating Commissioner’s findings: respondent was primarily responsible for the procurement of the fake decision presented to the complainant and recommended the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
Investigating Commissioner’s concluding recommendation: respondent be disbarred for being the author/forger of a fake court decision; all other penalties absorbed by the maximum penalty.
IBP Board of Governo