Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 and 2 - Digest
1 and 2 - Digest
JARDER
A.C. No. 9604
(March 20, 2013)
FACTS:
Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, both employees of the Sugar
Regulatory Administration received an Order from the Office of the OmbudsmanVisayas 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., a co-employee.
The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by Atty.
Charlie L. Bancolo. 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 and
declared that the signature in the Complaint was not his. Thus, Atty. Bancolo signed
an affidavit denying the said signature. This affidavit was used by Tapay and Rustia in
filing a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of
Atty. Bancolo.
Divinagracia, denying the same, presented as evidence an affidavit 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.
The case was then dismissed. Tapay and Rustia then later filed with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder,
Atty. Bancolos law partner. The complainants alleged 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. In their
Answer, respondents admitted that due to some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo permitted
that the pleadings be signed in his name by the secretary of the law office. After
investigation, 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 1of the same Code, and
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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
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. He likewise 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
.
Clearly, he violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which provides:
Princess C. Aragon
Ll. B. - I
clients, readily shows an apparent conflict of interest, more so when he signed as comaker.
Hence, the Court reversed the ruling of the IBP Board of Governors
and adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP in Resolution suspending
respondent Atty. Simando for six (6) months from the practice of law.