TAPAY vs. ATTY. BANCOLO AND ATTY.

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:

CANON 9. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR

INDIRECTLY, ASSIST INTHE 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. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to
those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive
right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to
withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct.
The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
disciplinary control of the Court. Thus, the law makes it misbehavior on his part,
subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
In Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation, it was 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.
Bancolos 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 nonlawyer. Further, under the Rules of Court, counsels 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 ones signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the responsibility
to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. This violation is an
act of falsehood which is a ground for disciplinary action.
In sum, The Court found that the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the
practice of law for one year is warranted and the dismissal of the case against Atty.
Jarder is proper

Princess C. Aragon
Ll. B. - I

LEE vs. ATTY. SIMANDO

A.C. No. 9537
June 10, 2013
FACTS:
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee. Atty.
Simando went to see Dr. Lee and asked if the latter could help a certain Felicito M.
Mejorado (Mejorado) for his needed funds. Mejorado was Atty.Simandos client in a
case claiming rewards against the Bureau of Customs. Dr. Lee initially refused to lend
money but Atty. Simando persisted and assured her that Mejorado will pay his
obligation. He even offered to be the co-maker of Mejorado and assured her that
Mejorado's obligation will be paid when due.
Due to Atty. Simando's persistence, his daily calls and frequent visits to
convince Dr. Lee, the latter gave into her lawyer's demands, and finally agreed to
give Mejorado sizeable amounts of money. When the said obligation became due,
despite Dr. Lee's repeated demands, Mejorado failed and refused to comply with his
obligation. Since Atty. Simando was still her lawyer then, Dr. Lee instructed him to
initiate legal action against Mejorado. Atty. Simando said he would get in touch with
Mejorado and ask him to pay his obligation without having to resort to legal action.
However, even after several months, Mejorado still failed to pay Dr.
Lee, so she again asked Atty. Simando why no payment has been made yet. Dr. Lee
then reminded Atty. Simando that he was supposed to be the co-maker of the
obligation of Mejorado, to which he replied: "Di kasuhan din ninyo ako!"Despite
complainant's repeated requests, respondent ignored her and failed to bring legal
actions against Mejorado. Thus, complainant was forced to terminate her contract
with Atty. Simando and demand payment from him as well.
On March 18, 2010, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Simando guilty
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. It recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. On December 29, 2010, the
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of
the IBP-CBD to suspend Atty. Simando from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.
Respondent moved for reconsideration. The Resolution dated
December 29, 2010 was reversed and the case against respondent was dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
interest.
HELD:
Yes, it is improper for respondent to appear as counsel for one party
(complainant as creditor) against the adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who is also
his client, since a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests.
He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflict with that of his present or former client.
Respondent's assertion that there is no conflict of interest because complainant and
respondent are his clients in unrelated cases fails to convince. His representation of
opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of
interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing. Moreover, with the subject
loan agreement entered into by the complainant and Mejorado, who are both his

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.