Tapay and Rustia v. Atty. Bancolo and Atty.

Jarder

In 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an order from the Ombudsman requiring them to file an answer to
a complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification of pub document, graft and corruption filed against
them by Divinagraca. The complaint was allegedly signed by Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo law office.

When Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the latter told Bancolo of the case.
Bancolo then denied that he represented Divinagracia and told Rustia that that signature was not his.
Thus, using Bancolo’s affidavit, Tapay and Rustia filed a cpunter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of
falsifying the signature of his alleged counsel, Bancolo.

Original complaint was provisionally dismissed because of the prejudicial question. Then, Divinagracia
presented as evidence an affidavit by Cordero, legal assistant of Bancolo”, that the law office accepted
Divinagracia’s case and was signed by the OFFICE SECRETARY per Bancolo’s instructions. Thus, the
ombudsman dismissed the instant case for insufficiency of evidence.

Then, Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP, the disbarment of Bancolo and Jarden. Also they filed a
supplement to the disbarment alleging that a certain Gentugao, the secretary of the law office, forged
the signature of Bancolo.

In their answer, respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed by Divinagracia
were accepted by the jarder bancolo law oofice. Bancolo alleged that he ordered his staff to prepare
pleadings and permitted that the pleadings be signed in his name by the secretary.

The Commission on bar discipline directed the respondents to attend a mandatory conference. The
respondents however, despite of notice, refused to attend. The Board of governors of ibp ruled
that because of Respondent Atty. Bancolo’s 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.
Jarder’s case on the other hand is dismissed for lack of merit.

Ruling: In Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation, 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. Bancolo’s 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, counsel’s 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. Thus, by affixing one’s signature to a pleading, it is
counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the
document.

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. This violation Is an act of falsehood which IS a ground for disciplinary action.

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.

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.

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.