RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA vs.
ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER
A.C. No. 9604 March 20, 2013
Facts:
Sometime in October 2004, 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 Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration.
The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L. 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 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.
The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of the counsel’s signature posed a prejudicial question to the Complaint’s validity.
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 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.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for falsification of public document for insufficiency of evidence. The administrative case for dishonesty was also dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.
Tapay and Rustia filed with the 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 by the PNP Crime Laboratory 6 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.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is administratively liable
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
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. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. 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.
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.
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. Thus, the court finds Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable.
Penalty: suspension from the practice of law for one year
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment