A.C. No. 13226. October 04, 2022
JOCELYN G. BARTOLOME, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REMIGIO P. ROJAS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Jocelyn Bartolome reconnected with respondent Atty. Remigio Rojas, a former college acquaintance. Learning of her brother Jonas Guingab’s desire to file an annulment case from Singapore, Bartolome consulted Atty. Rojas. He offered to expedite the case through a relative who was a judge in Cotabato for a fee of P150,000 for the judge, boasting of his successful annulment cases and requesting only camera lenses as his personal fee. Trusting this offer, Bartolome provided the necessary documents and, upon Atty. Rojas’s insistence, issued a P90,000 check payable to cash as an initial payment. Atty. Rojas later provided a photocopy of a purported final decision, promising the original would be mailed. However, a subsequent inquiry with the National Statistics Office revealed no record of the annulment, and the decision was discovered to be fake.
Atty. Rojas denied the allegations, claiming he and Bartolome had a prior romantic relationship and that she had begged for his help after being defrauded by another lawyer. He asserted he merely acted as an intermediary, contacting a certain Santo who claimed to process annulments before a specific judge. He admitted receiving the P90,000 check but claimed it was transmitted to Santo as payment. He argued he was also a victim of Santo’s deception and returned the P90,000 to Bartolome after a demand letter.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Remigio P. Rojas should be disbarred for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Rojas is disbarred. The Court found his actions constituted gross misconduct, dishonesty, and a severe betrayal of the integrity demanded of lawyers. The legal logic centers on the violation of core ethical duties. First, by offering to expedite a case through a judge for a fee, he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and deceit, violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. His act of facilitating an alleged “fixer’s fee” corrupts the administration of justice. Second, by presenting a fabricated court decision to his client, he committed a flagrant act of falsification and gross misrepresentation, a direct breach of the Lawyer’s Oath to do no falsehood. Third, his conduct demonstrated a lack of candor, fairness, and good faith toward his client, violating Canons 15 and 10.01 of the CPR, which require a lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty, and to avoid any influence that may undermine public confidence in the legal system.
The Court rejected his defense of being a mere intermediary or victim. As a lawyer, he had a non-delegable duty to ensure the legitimacy of the legal processes he engaged in. His failure to verify the authenticity of the annulment proceedings and his willing participation in a scheme that promised a favorable outcome for a fee showed a conscious disregard of his ethical obligations. The belated return of the money did not absolve him; it was an admission of the illicit transaction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and Atty. Rojas’s actions revealed a character unfit for the legal profession. Disbarment is imposed to protect the public and the integrity of the judicial system. The Court also found no basis for judicial clemency, as he failed to show genuine remorse or reformation.