Tapay Vs Bancolo, AC No. 9604, 20 March 2013

Group 10. Assigned to Villagonzalo.
77. Tapay vs Bancolo, AC No. 9604, 20 March 2013

Facts:
● This administrative case arose from a Complaint fied by Rodrigo E. Tapay (Tapay) and Anthony J. Rustia (Rustia),
both employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration, against Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo (Atty. Bancolo) and Atty.
Janus T. Jarder (Atty Jarder) for violation of the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism, Falsification of Public
Document, Gross Dishonesty, and Harassment.
● Tapay and Rustia received an Order from 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
Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie Bancolo of Jarder Bancolo Law Ofc
● 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. Bancolo's affidavit and other
documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature
of his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo.
● Case vs Tapay and Rustia dismissed. Office of the Ombudsman ordered that separate cases for Falsification of
Public Document 2 and Dishonesty 3 be filed against Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.
● 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 Divinagracia's case
and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the Office secretary per Atty.
Bancolo's instructions
● Tapay and Rustia filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty.
Jarder, Atty. Bancolo's 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 Report dated 1 July 2005 by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory 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
● Respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed by Divinagracia against complainants
before the Office of the Ombudsman 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
● Respondents failed to appear at the Commission on Bar Discipline’s conference
● IBP’s report and recommendation:
○ Atty. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 while Atty. Jarder violated Rule 1.01
○ Bancolo to be suspended from the practice of law for one year
○ Case against Jarder to be dismissed for lack of merit
Issue: Did Atty. Bancolo violate Rule 9.01 (Duty not to delegate legal work to unqualified persons)?
1
Group 10. Assigned to Villagonzalo.
Ruling: YES
● 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
● 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 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.
○ allowing a non-lawyer to a:x his signature to a pleading. This violation is an act of falsehood which is a
ground for disciplinary action.
● 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.

Tapay Vs Bancolo, AC No. 9604, 20 March 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tapay Vs Bancolo, AC No. 9604, 20 March 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tapay Vs Bancolo, AC No. 9604, 20 March 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 10. Assigned to Villagonzalo.

77. Tapay vs Bancolo, AC No. 9604, 20 March 2013

You might also like