Tapay v. Bancolo

FACTS: Tapay and Rustia received an Order 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 Divinagracia, a co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration. The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. 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. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed signature appearing on the Complaint and submitted six specimen signatures for comparison. Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo. The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint and ordered that separate cases for Falsification of Public Document and Dishonesty be filed against Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.

Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit denying that he falsified the signature of his former lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit by Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s case and that the Complaint was signed by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions. The case was dismissed. The administrative case for dishonesty was also dismissed. 

Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s law partner. They alleged that a certain Mary Jane Gentugao, the secretary of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office, forged the signature of Atty. Bancolo.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder are guilty for the violating Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR. YES for Atty. Bancolo and NO for Atty. Jarder

HELD: 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. He  also 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 CPR by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading.

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.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: 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.