"Issue
The core issue is whether Atty. Rojas should be disbarred for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.
Our Ruling
It is settled in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Its primary objective is public interest, "and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon members of the Bar to account for [their] actuations as [officers] of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney."41
Timely for resolution is the present complaint involving a lawyer allegedly perpetuating an illegal act of promoting instant annulment of marriage through fabricated judicial decisions.
The power of the Court to remove or suspend an attorney finds support in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Section 27 – Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — 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 in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfull appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied)
Stripped of non-essentials, Atty. Rojas admitted his involvement in the reprehensible practice of perpetuating "annulment packages," albeit disavowing authorship and with the caveat that he only did so to help the complainant, and in the process, was also scammed by Santo.42 All these, regardless of his intention of presenting supposedly mitigating circumstances, besmirched the legal profession to the highest degree, by making a mockery of the judicial system. He simply violated his sworn oath to be honest, and to obey the law and the Constitution. It also created an impression to the public that the judicial process can be trifled with, and undermined the judicial processes of the courts.
The very wordings and the spirit of the Lawyer's Oath is a continuing undertaking every lawyer in the legal profession ought to live out, viz.:
Lawyer's Oath
I do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 20 of Rule 138 reinforces the Lawyer's Oath and is crystal clear in its enumeration of the duties of every lawyer:
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law. (Emphasis supplied)
Atty. Rojas failed his Oath, especially considering his qualifications as a former officer of the IBP South Cotabato and General Santos Chapter, former law professor, and officer of various civic organizations.43 Atty. Rojas deliberately defiled the legal profession and was utterly remiss in his duties to the profession, to the society, and to the courts.
The Code, particularly Canon 1, requires the lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 sets the path in doing so, viz.:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Concomitantly, Atty. Rojas' actions likewise defied Canon 10 of the CPR which mandates that a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. This is magnified by Rule 10.01 stating:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
The rules need not be further elaborated especially for a seasoned lawyer. What is unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, doing any falsehood or consenting to its commission - are terms capable of estimation by a layperson but even more by a law practitioner.
Jurisprudence is replete with instances elaborating the rule. For emphasis, any act or omission that is contrary to, prohibited or unauthorized by, in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful." "Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element. To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be untrustworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straightforwardness. On the other hand, a conduct that is "deceitful" means as follows: Having the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. In order to be deceitful, the person must either have knowledge of the falsity or acted in reckless and conscious ignorance thereof, especially if the parties are not on equal terms, and was done with the intent that the aggrieved party act thereon, and the latter indeed acted in reliance of the false statement or deed in the manner contemplated to his or her injury.44
Fabricating a judicial decision or perpetuation of acts leading to such, undeniably comes within the prohibitive acts set by the CPR. Atty. 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.
In Manalang v. Atty. Buendia45 (Manalang), this Court disbarred a lawyer for fabricating a judicial decision granting annulment to the client. In the said case, the lawyer denied any participation and claimed to have only acted as an intermediary between the client and the lawyer who handled the annulment case. Such defenses were rejected by this Court and found the respondent lawyer to have violated the sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR by deliberately misleading and deceiving the client by fabricating a court decision. For such failure to uphold the standards required in the legal profession, and failure to perform the duties of competence and diligence required of lawyers, the Court held that the lawyer no longer deserves to be a member of the bar.46
Also in Manalang, this Court discussed analogous cases touching on the fabrication of judicial issuances, to wit:
Madria v. Rivera has analogous circumstances to this case. In Madria, petitioner obtained the legal services of respondent to help her with the annulment of her marriage. Respondent guaranteed he can obtain the decree of annulment without petitioner appearing in court. Months later, respondent informed petitioner that her petition had been granted and provided her a copy of the decision and a certificate of finality.
Petitioner's husband in that case, however, filed a complaint against her for allegedly fabricating the decision for the annulment of her marriage. It was then that petitioner learned that the decision and the certificate of finality were fabricated. Upon inquiring with the court, she found that her petition for annulment was actually dismissed and the signature in the alleged decision presented by respondent was forged.
In Madria, this Court disbarred respondent and explained that his act "not only violates the court and its processes, but also betrays the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client[.]" Therefore, disbarment was meted out for his failure to maintain and uphold the integrity of the Law Profession. In that case this Court held:
The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility[.]
[x x x x]
The respondent would shift the blame to his client. That a lay person like the complainant could have swayed a lawyer like the respondent into committing the simulations was patently improbable. Yet, even if he had committed the simulations upon the client's prodding, he would be no less responsible. Being a lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly those quoted earlier, which would have been enough to deter him from committing the falsification, as well as to make him unhesitatingly frustrate her prodding in deference to his sworn obligation as a lawyer to always act with honesty and to obey the laws of the land. Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his Lawyer's Oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission." Indeed, the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly enjoined every lawyer like him to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. As we have observed in one case:
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.1âшphi1
[x x x x]
Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or misconduct in office, any of which was already a ground sufficient for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The moral standards of the Legal Profession expected the respondent to act with the highest degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their practice of law. That he turned his back on such standards exhibited his baseness, lack of moral character, dishonesty, lack of probity and general unworthiness to continue as an officer of the Court. (Citations omitted)
Similarly, in Billanes v. Latido, this Court disbarred a lawyer for similar misrepresentation and deceitful acts.
In Billanes, petitioner engaged the services of respondent for the annulment of his marriage with his estranged Filipino wife. About a month later, respondent informed petitioner that the annulment case had been filed and that the judge had rendered a decision in his favor. Respondent even showed a copy of the decision to the petitioner.
Believing his marriage was annulled, petitioner married an Australian national and applied for an Australian visa, attaching the purported decision supporting the annulment of his first marriage. The Australian Embassy, however, informed petitioner that the decision was fraudulent and its submission will result in the denial of his visa application. Petitioner then inquired with the court which supposedly rendered the decision. However, that court issued a certification stating that his annulment case was never filed and the documents furnished to him were fake. With these circumstances, respondent was disbarred. This Court explained:
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR instructs that "as officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing." Indubitably, respondent fell short of such standard when he committed the afore-described acts of misrepresentation and deception against complainant. Such acts are not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; they further reveal basic moral flaws that make respondent unfit to practice law.
In Tan v. Diamante, the Court found the lawyer therein administratively liable for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR as it was established that he, among others, falsified a court order. In that case, the Court deemed the lawyer's acts to be "so reprehensible, and his violations of the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting his moral unfitness and inability to discharge his duties as a member of the bar." Thus, the Court disbarred the lawyer.
Similarly, in Taday v. Apoya, Jr., promulgated just last July 3, 2018, the Court disbarred the erring lawyer for authoring a fake court decision regarding his client's annulment case, which was considered as a violation also of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. In justifying the imposition of the penalty of disbarment, the Court held that the lawyer "committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral[,] and deceitful conduct, and lessened the confidence of the public in the legal system. Instead of being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice. His reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed upon him."47 (Citations omitted)
Guided by the above discussion, the conclusion is thus all too clear. Atty. Rojas should be held administratively liable and must be considered unfit for the practice of law. To highlight, "the right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also exercise a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of public trust."48
Atty. Rojas, while admitting his infractions, invokes leniency and supplicates that he be unqualifiedly absolved of his liability out of humanitarian reasons. He admits that his acceptance of the case transgressed the ethical yardstick but pleas to not be judged on that aspect alone and cited his accolades.49
Unfortunately for Atty. Rojas, We deny his supplication.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved only for those who meet the twin standards of legal proficiency and morality. It is so delicately imbued with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of this Court to control and regulate in order to protect and promote public welfare.50
We cannot give Atty. Rojas a free pass. 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.
Moreover, this Court has already set the parameters for judicial clemency for both disrobed judges and disbarred lawyers in Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint Against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto (In Re: Pinto).51 The following guidelines are laid, thus:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges['] associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation;
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation;
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he (or she) still has productive years ahead of him [or her] that can be put to good use by giving him [or her] a chance to redeem himself [or herself];
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service;
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.52
This Court further elucidated that except for the most compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances, there must be a five-year minimum period before "dismissal or disbarment [can] be the subject of any kind of clemency." Further, "[t]o be sure, the underlying impetus of establishing a default uniform period is to curtail the broadly subjective process of determining the appropriate period within which genuine remorse and reformation are perceived to have been attained. Conceptually, the [five-year] requirement is a reasonable estimation by the Court of the minimum period necessary for the [petitioning lawyer's] reflection of his or her past transgressions for which he or she was meted the ultimate penalty of disbarment. For clarity, the period is reckoned from the time the Court's resolution is promulgated since it is only by then that the lawyer becomes duly informed of his[/her] administrative liability and hence, would be able to begin atoning for his or her malpractice."53
Once this minimum requirement is complied with, however, it must be emphasized that the petition must show convincing proof of the petitioner's remorse and rehabilitation. For it is entirely possible that despite the minimum period of reflection set by the Court, which hence, renders him or her eligible to file a clemency petition, petitioner, throughout all these years, has not yet fully accepted the decision against him or her, or has failed to change his or her ways so as to warrant the mercy of the Court.
To expound, "[r]emorse and reformation must reflect how the claimant has redeemed [his or her] moral aptitude by clearly understanding the gravity and consequences of [his or her] conduct." Concomitantly, "there must be an acknowledgment of the wrongful actions and subsequent showing of sincere repentance and correction. This Court must see to it that the long period of dismissal moved the erring officers to reform themselves, exhibit remorse and repentance, and develop a capacity to live up again to the standards demanded from court officers."54 (Citations and emphasis omitted)
Considering the above requirements, We find that Atty. Rojas has not met the guidelines for this Court to consider clemency. He must first be held accountable, acknowledge his transgressions, and suffer the penalty therefor.
WHEREFORE, for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Remegio P. Rojas is DISBARRED from the practice of law effective immediately upon his receipt of this Decision, and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys."
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 13226. October 04, 2022 ]
JOCELYN G. BARTOLOME, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REMIGIO P. ROJAS, RESPONDENT.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/oct2022/ac_13226_2022.html
