RODRIGO E. TAPAY and J. RUSTIA, Complainants, versus ATTY. CHARLIE L.

BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, Respondents.

A.C. No. 9604
March 20 20!3
Attorney; a lawyer shall not assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
FACTS:
Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, both employees of the Sugar Regulatory
Administration 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. 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 1
of 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 IN

THE 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.

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
non-lawyer. Further, under the Rules of Court, a 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. For
violating rule 9.01 of the CPR, Atty. Bacolo was meted with the penalty the suspension
from the practice of law for one year.

GLORIA P. JINON, Complainant, versus ATTY. LEONARDO E. JIZ, Respondent.

A.C. No. 9615
MARCH 5, 2013

Attorney; duty to hold in trust money received from client.

FACTS:

Gloria Jinon entrusted two land titles covering properties owned by their deceased
parents to her sister-in-law, Viola J. Jinon: the Sta. Barbara Property and the Leganes
Property, both situated in Iloilo. Eventually, Gloria sold the Sta. Barbara Property, which
resulted in disagreements between her and Viola regarding their respective shares in the
proceeds. Consequently, Viola refused to return to Gloria the Leganes Property,
prompting Gloria to engage the services of Atty. Jiz to recover the said title and paid an
acceptance fee of 17,000.00. Atty. Jiz assured the transfer of the title in Gloria's name.
Later, Gloria, upon Atty. Jiz's instructions, remitted the amount of 45,000.00 to answer
for the expenses of the transfer. However, she was later surprised to learn from Atty. Jiz
that a certain Atty. Caras was handling the same, and when she visited the Leganes
Property, which has been leased out, she discovered that Atty. Jiz has been collecting
the rentals for several months amounting to 12,000.00. When she demanded for the
rentals, Atty. Jiz gave her only 7,000.00, explaining that the balance of 5,000.00
would be added to the expenses needed for the transfer of the title. Gloria terminated
the legal services of Atty. Jiz and demand the return of the amounts of 45,000.00 and
5,000.00, which has remained unheeded.

Hence, Gloria filed an administrative complaint praying that Atty. Jiz be ordered to
reimburse the said amounts and be meted disciplinary action that the Court may deem fit
under the circumstances. On his part, Atty. Jiz asseverated that he was not remiss in his
legal duties to Gloria. Denying liability to reimburse Gloria for any amount, he claimed
that he had rendered the corresponding legal services to her with fidelity and candor.
Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva of the Commission on Bar Discipline then later
submitted its Report and Recommendation, which was adopted with modification by the
IBP Board of Governors finding Atty Jiz remiss in his duty and is to suspended from the
practice of law for two years and to reimburse the amount of P45,000.00 and 12%
interest from the time he received the amount.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Jiz should be held administratively liable for having been remiss in
his duties as a lawyer with respect to the legal services he had undertaken to perform for
his client, Gloria.

HELD:

After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the findings of
Commissioner Villanueva and the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Jiz was remiss in his
duties as a lawyer in neglecting his clients case, misappropriating her funds and
disobeying the CBDs lawful orders requiring the submission of his pleadings and his
attendance at hearings. He should thus be suspended from the practice of law in
conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.

The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As
such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency,
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to
society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values
and norms embodied in the Code.

Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above
standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND

PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

RULE 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.

x xx xxx x xx

RULE 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand.

x xx xxx xxx

CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE

AND DILIGENCE.

x xx xxx xxx

Moreover, money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the
processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be immediately
returned.

A lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment.