View full case

RODRIGO E. TAPAY v. ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO

FACTS:

In October 2004, Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia, employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration, received an Order from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit in response to a complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed by their co-employee Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. The complaint, dated 31 August 2004, was allegedly signed by Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office. When Rustia informed Atty. Bancolo of the case, Atty. Bancolo denied representing Divinagracia and claimed the signature on the complaint was not his. Consequently, Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying the signature, and Tapay and Rustia used this to file a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying Bancolo's signature.

The Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the complaint against Tapay and Rustia due to the falsification issue but ordered separate cases against Divinagracia for falsification and dishonesty. Divinagracia denied the falsification, presenting an affidavit from Richard A. Cordero, which stated that the complaint was accepted by the Jarder Bancolo Law Office and signed by a secretary per Atty. Bancolo's instructions. The Ombudsman eventually dismissed the falsification case against Divinagracia for insufficiency of evidence.

Subsequently, Tapay and Rustia filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder. They alleged that the respondents engaged in unprofessional and unethical practices, including the forgery of Atty. Bancolo's signature to harass and persecute others. Respondents admitted that their law office accepted the case against Tapay and Rustia and that the secretary signed pleadings in Atty. Bancolo's name due to minor lapses. However, respondents denied that Mary Jane Gentugao was employed as their secretary. Despite multiple notices, respondents failed to attend mandatory conferences set by the Commission on Bar Discipline, while complainants submitted their case based on the documents to the IBP.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing his secretary to sign pleadings in his name.

  2. Whether Atty. Janus T. Jarder should also be held administratively liable for such violations under the concept of command responsibility.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo was found administratively liable for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year, effective upon the finality of the decision.

  2. The complaint against Atty. Janus T. Jarder was dismissed for lack of merit, as there was no evidence that he was directly involved or had knowledge of the wrongful practice by Atty. Bancolo.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

  2. Prohibition against Unauthorized Practice of Law A lawyer must prevent and not assist in unauthorized practice of law to protect public interest and maintain standards of legal profession.

  3. Responsibility and Certification in Pleading Counsel’s signature on a pleading certifies that the lawyer has read the document, and to the best of their knowledge, supports it with good grounds and does not interpose it for delay.