Jocelyn Bartolome vs Remigio Rojas

A.C. No. 13226 – 930 Phil. 518 – Legal Ethics – Rule 138; Section 27 – Deceit – Use of fake court decision

Jocelyn Bartolome and Atty. Remigio Rojas were college friends who rekindled their friendship in 2010 when they chanced each other online. Bartolome narrated to Rojas that she has a brother in Singapore who was seeking to have his marriage annulled in the Philippines so that he may secure permanent residency in Singapore. Bartolome learned from other lawyers that it could cost her brother around Php300k to finance an annulment of marriage case. According to Bartolome, Rojas told her that he knew of a judge in Cotabato City who can grant an annulment of marriage case for only Php150k. Hearing that, Bartolome told her brother and in January 2011, they gave Php90k to Rojas as downpayment to the judge.

In February 2012, Rojas handed a decision to Bartolome which stated that her brother’s marriage had been annulled. However, Bartolome later confirmed with the Philippine Statistics Authority that her brother’s marriage was not annulled and that the decision handed to her by Rojas was a fake one. She then filed a disbarment case against Rojas.

In his answer, Rojas claimed that he merely facilitated the request of Bartolome; that he made arrangements with certain individuals to secure an annulment decree but he was scammed; he only realized that he was scammed when he learned that the alleged judge who signed the decision was someone he personally knew and he knew that the judge could not have signed the decision because he knows for a fact that the judge is not corrupt. He tried to tell Bartolome about it but was not able to. He asked for leniency in the disbarment case against him as he has been a good member of the bar (in fact during the pendency of this case he served as an IBP chapter president); that he has been a lawyer for the marginalized; and is even a law professor.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rojas should be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. Based on the investigation conducted, Rojas is primary responsible for the fake decision. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct. Fabricating a judicial decision or perpetuation of acts leading to such, undeniably comes within the prohibitive acts set by the CPR. 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. His plea for leniency cannot be granted. To give in to his plea is to make a travesty of the judicial system and the legal profession and to go against this Court’s bounden duty to safeguard the public against erring lawyers. Lawyers who have been found to have violated their oath must be accountable for their actions and must face the consequences of their ill choices that affect the legal profession.

Read full text.