, ...

'

l\epuhlic of tbe l)bilippines

$>upreme QCourt
:iMantla
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 9604

RODRIGO E. TAPA Y and

ANTHON~ J. RlJSTIA,
Complainants,

Present:
CARPIO, J, Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

-versus-

ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and

ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER,
Respondents.

Promulgated:

MAR 1 0 20!3 \ik\m~clhn2Qct9

X------------------------------------------------ -{(rE'j<.
DECISION

CARPIO, J.:
.

"

The Case

This administrative case arose from a Complaint tiled by Rodrigo E.

Tapay (Tapay) and Anthony J. Rustia (Rustia), both employees of the Sugar
Regulatory Administration, against Atty. Charlie L. Ban colo (Atty. Bancolo)
and Atty. Janus T. larder (A tty larder) for violation of the Canons of Ethics
and Professionalism, Falsification of Public Document, Gross Dishonesty,
and Harassment.

._'>

Decision

A.C. No. 9604

The Facts
Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order dated
14 October 2004 from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them
to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation of authority,
falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against
them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. (Divinagracia), a co-employee in the
Sugar Regulatory Administration. The Complaint1 dated 31 August 2004
was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L.
Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City, Negros
Occidental.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other,
the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them before the
Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented
Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. When Rustia
showed him the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature
appearing above his name as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Thus,
Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fact. On
9 December 2004, Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed
signature appearing on the Complaint filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman and submitted six specimen signatures for comparison. Using
Atty. Bancolos affidavit and other documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia
filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of
his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo.
In a Resolution dated 28 March 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman
provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of the counsels
signature posed a prejudicial question to the Complaints validity. Also, the
Office of the Ombudsman ordered that separate cases for Falsification of
Public Document2 and Dishonesty3 be filed against Divinagracia, with Rustia
and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.
Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit dated 1 August
2005 denying that he falsified the signature of his former lawyer, Atty.
Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit dated 1 August
2005 by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the
Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracias case and that the
Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the office
secretary per Atty. Bancolos instructions. Divinagracia asked that the
Office of the Ombudsman dismiss the cases for falsification of public
document and dishonesty filed against him by Rustia and Atty. Bancolo and
1
2
3

Docketed as OMB-V-C-04-0445-I and OMB-V-A-04-0429-I.

Docketed as OMB-V-C-05-0207-E.
Docketed as OMB-V-A-05-0219-E.

Decision

A.C. No. 9604

to revive the original Complaint for various offenses that he filed against
Tapay and Rustia.
In a Resolution dated 19 September 2005, the Office of the
Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for falsification of public document
(OMB-V-C-05-0207-E) for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive
portion states:
WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence, without prejudice to the re-filing by
Divinagracia, Jr. of a proper complaint for violation of RA 3019 and other
offenses against Rustia and Tapay.
SO ORDERED.4

The administrative case for dishonesty (OMB-V-A-05-0219-E) was

also dismissed for lack of substantial evidence in a Decision dated
19 September 2005.
On 29 November 2005, Tapay and Rustia filed with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint5 to disbar Atty. Bancolo and
Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolos law partner. The complainants alleged that
they were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. Complainants
stated further that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the Complaint was not
the only one that was forged. Complainants attached a Report6 dated 1 July
2005 by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory 6 which examined
three other letter-complaints signed by Atty. Bancolo for other clients,
allegedly close friends of Atty. Jarder. The report concluded that the
questioned signatures in the letter-complaints and the submitted standard
signatures of Atty. Bancolo were not written by one and the same person.
Thus, complainants maintained that not only were respondents engaging in
unprofessional and unethical practices, they were also involved in
falsification of documents used to harass and persecute innocent people.
On 9 January 2006, complainants filed a Supplement to the
Disbarment Complaint Due to Additional Information. They alleged that a
certain Mary Jane Gentugao, the secretary of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office,
forged the signature of Atty. Bancolo.
In their Answer dated 26 January 2006 to the disbarment complaint,
respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed by
Divinagracia against complainants before the Office of the Ombudsman
4
5
6

IBP Records (Vol. I), p. 14.

Docketed as CBD Case No. 05-1612.
Sub-Office Report No. 0008-2005.

Decision

A.C. No. 9604

were accepted by the Jarder Bancolo Law Office. The cases were assigned
to Atty. Bancolo. Atty. Bancolo alleged that after being informed of the
assignment of the cases, he ordered his staff to prepare and draft all the
necessary pleadings and documents. However, due to some minor lapses,
Atty. Bancolo permitted that the pleadings and communications be signed in
his name by the secretary of the law office. Respondents added that
complainants filed the disbarment complaint to retaliate against them since
the cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman were meritorious and
strongly supported by testimonial and documentary evidence. Respondents
also denied that Mary Jane Gentugao was employed as secretary of their law
office.
Tapay and Rustia filed a Reply to the Answer dated 2 March 2006.
Thereafter, the parties were directed by the Commission on Bar Discipline to
attend a mandatory conference scheduled on 5 May 2006. The conference
was reset to 10 August 2006. On the said date, complainants were present
but respondents failed to appear. The conference was reset to 25 September
2006 for the last time. Again, respondents failed to appear despite receiving
notice of the conference. Complainants manifested that they were
submitting their disbarment complaint based on the documents submitted to
the IBP. Respondents were also deemed to have waived their right to
participate in the mandatory conference. Further, both parties were directed
to submit their respective position papers. On 27 October 2006, the IBP
received complainants position paper dated 18 October 2006 and
respondents position paper dated 23 October 2006.
The IBPs Report and Recommendation
On 11 April 2007, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the Investigating
Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, submitted
her Report. Atty. Quisumbing found that Atty. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01
of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility while Atty. Jarder
violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same Code. The Investigating
Commissioner recommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for two years
from the practice of law and Atty. Jarder be admonished for his failure to
exercise certain responsibilities in their law firm.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner
opined:
x x x. In his answer[,] respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo
admitted that his signature appearing in the complaint filed against
complainants Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia with the
Ombudsman were signed by the secretary. He did not refute the findings
that his signatures appearing in the various documents released from his

Decision

A.C. No. 9604

office were found not to be his. Such pattern of malpratice by respondent

clearly breached his obligation under Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, for a lawyer
who allows a non-member to represent him is guilty of violating the
aforementioned Canon. The fact that respondent was busy cannot serve as
an excuse for him from signing personally. After all respondent is a
member of a law firm composed of not just one (1) lawyer. The Supreme
Court has ruled that this practice constitute negligence and undersigned
finds the act a sign of indolence and ineptitude. Moreover, respondents
ignored the notices sent by undersigned. That showed patent lack of
respect to the Integrated Bar of the Philippine[s] Commission on Bar
Discipline and its proceedings. It betrays lack of courtesy and
irresponsibility as lawyers.
On the other hand, Atty. Janus T. Jarder, a senior partner of the
law firm Jarder Bancolo and Associates Law Office, failed to exercise
certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm. As a
senior partner[,] he failed to abide to the principle of command
responsibility. x x x.
xxxx
Respondent Atty. Janus Jarder after all is a seasoned practitioner,
having passed the bar in 1995 and practicing law up to the present. He
holds himself out to the public as a law firm designated as Jarder Bancolo
and Associates Law Office. It behooves Atty. Janus T. Jarder to exert
ordinary diligence to find out what is going on in his law firm, to ensure
that all lawyers in his firm act in conformity to the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As a partner[,] it is his responsibility to provide
efficacious control of court pleadings and other documents that carry the
name of the law firm. Had he done that, he could have known the
unethical practice of his law partner Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo.
Respondent Atty. Janus T. Jarder failed to perform this task and is
administratively liable under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.7

On 19 September 2007, in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-97, the Board

of Governors of the IBP approved with modification the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The Resolution states:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex A; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent Atty. Bancolos
violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year.

IBP Records (Vol. III), pp. 4-6.

Decision

A.C. No. 9604

However, with regard to the charge against Atty. Janus T. Jarder,

the Board of Governors RESOLVED as it is hereby RESOLVED to
AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, and APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the case
for lack of merit.8

Tapay and Rustia filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Likewise, Atty.

Bancolo filed his Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 December 2007.
Thereafter, Atty. Jarder filed his separate Consolidated Comment/Reply to
Complainants Motion for Reconsideration and Comment Filed by
Complainants dated 29 January 2008.
In Resolution No. XX-2012-175 dated 9 June 2012, the IBP Board of
Governors denied both complainants and Atty. Bancolos motions for
reconsideration. The IBP Board found no cogent reason to reverse the
findings of the Investigating Commissioner and affirmed Resolution
No. XVIII-2007-97 dated 19 September 2007.
The Courts Ruling
After a careful review of the records of the case, we agree with the
findings and recommendation of the IBP Board and find reasonable grounds
to hold respondent Atty. Bancolo administratively liable.
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client
before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary
of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 9
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN
THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - 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.

This rule was clearly explained in the case of Cambaliza v. CristalTenorio,9 where we held:
The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in,
the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
8
9

Id. at 1.
478 Phil. 378, 389 (2004).

Decision

A.C. No. 9604

individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The

permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the
court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those
unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the
Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus,
the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his
professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible
the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate.
And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary
action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.

In Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation,10 we held that the

preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the
practice of law which is reserved exclusively for members of the legal
profession. Atty. Bancolos authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to
another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer. Further, under the
Rules of Court, counsels signature serves as a certification that (1) he has
read the pleading; (2) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief
there is good ground to support it; and (3) it is not interposed for delay.11
Thus, by affixing ones signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has
the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the
document.
In his Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 December 2007, Atty.
Bancolo wants us to believe that he was a victim of circumstances or of
manipulated events because of his unconditional trust and confidence in his
former law partner, Atty. Jarder. However, Atty. Bancolo did not take any
steps to rectify the situation, save for the affidavit he gave to Rustia denying
his signature to the Complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Atty. Bancolo had an opportunity to maintain his innocence when he filed
with the IBP his Joint Answer (with Atty. Jarder) dated 26 January 2006.
Atty. Bancolo, however, admitted that prior to the preparation of the Joint
Answer, Atty. Jarder threatened to file a disbarment case against him if he
did not cooperate. Thus, he was constrained to allow Atty. Jarder to prepare
the Joint Answer. Atty. Bancolo simply signed the verification without
seeing the contents of the Joint Answer.
In the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of
some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapay
and Rustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance.
Undoubtedly, Atty. Bancolo violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading.
10
11

529 Phil. 876 (2006).

RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Section 3.

Decision

A.C. No. 9604

This violation Is an act of falsehood which

action.

IS

a ground for disciplinary

The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder was
directly involved, had knowledge of, or even participated in the wrongful
practice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing or tolerating his secretary to sign
pleadings for him. Thus, we agree with the finding of the IBP Board that
Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable.
In sum, we find that the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the practice
of law for one year is warranted. We also find proper the dismissal of the
case against Atty. larder.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Janus T.

larder for lack of merit.

...

We find respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo administratively liable

for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
year effective upon finality of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent Atty. Charlie L.
Bancolo's record in this Court as attorney. Further, let copies of this
Decision be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office
of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the
courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

Decision

WE CONCUR:

()rUM) {Jfb;__
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

#~.c~
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

ESTELA

M~~~ERNABE

Associate Justice

....

A.C. No. 9604