G.R. No.: A.C. No. 9604; March 20, 2013
Case Parties/Title: RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA, Complainants, vs. ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainants Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia, employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration, filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder. The complaint arose from a case filed against Tapay and Rustia before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas by their co-employee, Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. The Ombudsman complaint bore the signature of “Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo” as counsel for Divinagracia. When Rustia confronted Atty. Bancolo, the latter denied representing Divinagracia and claimed the signature was not his, subsequently executing an affidavit to that effect. Using this affidavit, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsification. The Ombudsman provisionally dismissed Divinagracia’s complaint and ordered the filing of separate cases for Falsification and Dishonesty against him.
Later, Divinagracia submitted a counter-affidavit denying falsification, supported by an affidavit from Atty. Bancolo’s legal assistant, Richard A. Cordero, stating that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office had accepted Divinagracia’s case and that the Ombudsman complaint was signed by an office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions. The Ombudsman subsequently dismissed the criminal and administrative cases against Divinagracia for insufficiency of evidence.
Tapay and Rustia then filed the disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging the signature was forged as part of a pattern of harassment. They attached a PNP Crime Laboratory Report concluding that Atty. Bancolo’s signatures on several letter-complaints were not genuine. In their Answer, respondents admitted the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s case, which was assigned to Atty. Bancolo. They claimed that due to “minor lapses,” Atty. Bancolo permitted the office secretary to sign pleadings in his name. Respondents failed to appear at mandatory conferences set by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder are administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the IBP’s recommendation.
1. As to Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo: The Court found him administratively liable for violating Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from delegating to an unqualified person the performance of tasks requiring the exercise of professional judgment. By allowing his secretary to sign pleadings in his name, he engaged in misconduct constituting negligence, indolence, and ineptitude. His failure to appear at the IBP mandatory conferences demonstrated a lack of respect for the proceedings. The Court SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for one (1) year, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.
2. As to Atty. Janus T. Jarder: The Court dismissed the complaint against him for lack of merit. While he was a senior partner in the law firm, the complainants presented no evidence that he was directly involved in, had knowledge of, or participated in Atty. Bancolo’s practice of allowing his secretary to sign pleadings. The principle of “command responsibility” was not applied to find him administratively liable.