A.C. No.

9604 March 20, 2013

This administrative case arose from a Complaint tiled by Rodrigo E. Tapay
(Tapay) and Anthony J. Rustia (Rustia), both employees of the ugar
Regulatory Administration, against Atty. Charlie !. "ancolo (Atty. "ancolo)
and Atty. Janus T. larder (Atty. Jarder) for violation of the Canons of Ethics
and #rofessionalism, $alsification of #ublic %ocument, &ross %ishonesty,
and 'arassment.
The Facts
ometime in (ctober )**+, Tapay and Rustia received an (rder dated ,+
(ctober )**+ from the (ffice of the (mbudsman-.isayas re/uiring 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
0ehimias %ivinagracia, Jr. (%ivinagracia), a co-employee in the ugar
Regulatory Administration. The Complaint
,
dated 1, August )**+ 2as
allegedly signed on behalf of %ivinagracia by one Atty. Charlie !. "ancolo of
the Jarder "ancolo !a2 (ffice based in "acolod City, 0egros (ccidental.
3hen Atty. "ancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the
latter informed Atty. "ancolo of the case filed against them before the (ffice
of the (mbudsman. Atty. "ancolo denied that he represented %ivinagracia
since he had yet to meet %ivinagracia in person. 3hen Rustia sho2ed him
the Complaint, Atty. "ancolo declared that the signature appearing above
his name as counsel for %ivinagracia 2as not his. Thus, Rustia convinced
Atty. "ancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fact. (n 4 %ecember
)**+, Atty. "ancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed signature
appearing on the Complaint filed 2ith the (ffice of the (mbudsman and
submitted si5 specimen signatures for comparison. 6sing Atty. "ancolo7s
affidavit and other documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-
affidavit accusing %ivinagracia of falsifying the signature of his alleged
counsel, Atty. "ancolo.
8n a Resolution dated )9 :arch )**;, the (ffice of the (mbudsman
provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of the counsel7s
signature posed a pre<udicial /uestion to the Complaint7s validity. Also, the
(ffice of the (mbudsman ordered that separate cases for $alsification of
#ublic %ocument
)
and %ishonesty
1
be filed against %ivinagracia, 2ith Rustia
and Atty. "ancolo as complainants.
Thereafter, %ivinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit dated , August )**;
denying that he falsified the signature of his former la2yer, Atty. "ancolo.
%ivinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit dated , August )**; by
Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. "ancolo, that the Jarder
"ancolo !a2 (ffice accepted %ivinagracia7s case and that the Complaint
filed 2ith the (ffice of the (mbudsman 2as signed by the office secretary
per Atty. "ancolo7s instructions. %ivinagracia as=ed that the (ffice of the
(mbudsman dismiss the cases for falsification of public document and
dishonesty filed against him by Rustia and Atty. "ancolo and to revive the
original Complaint for various offenses that he filed against Tapay and
Rustia.
8n a Resolution dated ,4 eptember )**;, the (ffice of the (mbudsman
dismissed the criminal case for falsification of public document ((:"-.-C-
*;-*)*>-E) for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion states?
3'ERE$(RE, the instant case is hereby %8:8E% for insufficiency of
evidence, 2ithout pre<udice to the re-filing by %ivinagracia, Jr. of a proper
complaint for violation of RA 1*,4 and other offenses against Rustia and
Tapay.
( (R%ERE%.
+
The administrative case for dishonesty ((:"-.-A-*;-*),4-E) 2as also
dismissed for lac= of substantial evidence in a %ecision dated ,4
eptember )**;.
(n )4 0ovember )**;, Tapay and Rustia filed 2ith the 8ntegrated "ar of the
#hilippines (8"#) a complaint
;
to disbar Atty. "ancolo and Atty. Jarder, Atty.
"ancolo7s la2 partner. The complainants alleged that they 2ere sub<ected
to a harassment Complaint filed before the (ffice of the (mbudsman 2ith
the forged signature of Atty. "ancolo. Complainants stated further that the
signature of Atty. "ancolo in the Complaint 2as not the only one that 2as
forged. Complainants attached a Report
@
dated , July )**; by the
#hilippine 0ational #olice Crime !aboratory @ 2hich e5amined three other
letter-complaints signed by Atty. "ancolo for other clients, allegedly close
friends of Atty. Jarder. The report concluded that the /uestioned signatures
in the letter-complaints and the submitted standard signatures of Atty.
"ancolo 2ere not 2ritten by one and the same person. Thus, complainants
maintained that not only 2ere respondents engaging in unprofessional and
unethical practices, they 2ere also involved in falsification of documents
used to harass and persecute innocent people.
(n 4 January )**@, complainants filed a upplement to the %isbarment
Complaint %ue to Additional 8nformation. They alleged that a certain :ary
Jane &entugao, the secretary of the Jarder "ancolo !a2 (ffice, forged the
signature of Atty. "ancolo.
8n their Ans2er dated )@ January )**@ to the disbarment complaint,
respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed by
%ivinagracia against complainants before the (ffice of the (mbudsman
2ere accepted by the Jarder "ancolo !a2 (ffice. The cases 2ere assigned
to Atty. "ancolo. Atty. "ancolo alleged that after being informed of the
assignment of the cases, he ordered his staff to prepare and draft all the
necessary pleadings and documents. 'o2ever, due to some minor lapses,
Atty. "ancolo permitted that the pleadings and communications be signed in
his name by the secretary of the la2 office. Respondents added that
complainants filed the disbarment complaint to retaliate against them since
the cases filed before the (ffice of the (mbudsman 2ere meritorious and
strongly supported by testimonial and documentary evidence. Respondents
also denied that :ary Jane &entugao 2as employed as secretary of their
la2 office.
Tapay and Rustia filed a Reply to the Ans2er dated ) :arch )**@.
Thereafter, the parties 2ere directed by the Commission on "ar %iscipline
to attend a mandatory conference scheduled on ; :ay )**@. The
conference 2as reset to ,* August )**@. (n the said date, complainants
2ere present but respondents failed to appear. The conference 2as reset to
); eptember )**@ for the last time. Again, respondents failed to appear
despite receiving notice of the conference. Complainants manifested that
they 2ere submitting their disbarment complaint based on the documents
submitted to the 8"#. Respondents 2ere also deemed to have 2aived their
right to participate in the mandatory conference. $urther, both parties 2ere
directed to submit their respective position papers. (n )> (ctober )**@, the
8"# received complainants7 position paper dated ,9 (ctober )**@ and
respondents7 position paper dated )1 (ctober )**@.
The 8"#7s Report and Recommendation
(n ,, April )**>, Atty. !olita A. Auisumbing, the 8nvestigating
Commissioner of the Commission on "ar %iscipline of the 8"#, submitted
her Report. Atty. Auisumbing found that Atty. "ancolo violated Rule 4.*, of
Canon 4 of the Code of #rofessional Responsibility 2hile Atty. Jarder
violated Rule ,.*, of Canon , of the same Code. The 8nvestigating
Commissioner recommended that Atty. "ancolo be suspended for t2o years
from the practice of la2 and Atty. Jarder be admonished for his failure to
e5ercise certain responsibilities in their la2 firm.
8n her Report and Recommendation, the 8nvestigating Commissioner
opined?
5 5 5. 8n his ans2er, respondent Atty. Charlie !. "ancolo admitted that his
signature appearing in the complaint filed against complainants7 Rodrigo E.
Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia 2ith the (mbudsman 2ere signed by the
secretary. 'e did not refute the findings that his signatures appearing in the
various documents released from his office 2ere found not to be his. uch
pattern of malpratice by respondent clearly breached his obligation under
Rule 4.*, of Canon 4, for a la2yer 2ho allo2s a non-member to represent
him is guilty of violating the aforementioned Canon. The fact that
respondent 2as busy cannot serve as an e5cuse for him from signing
personally. After all respondent is a member of a la2 firm composed of not
<ust one (,) la2yer. The upreme Court has ruled that this practice
constitute negligence and undersigned finds the act a sign of indolence and
ineptitude. :oreover, respondents ignored the notices sent by undersigned.
That sho2ed patent lac= of respect to the 8ntegrated "ar of the #hilippines7
Commission on "ar %iscipline and its proceedings. 8t betrays lac= of
courtesy and irresponsibility as la2yers.
(n the other hand, Atty. Janus T. Jarder, a senior partner of the la2 firm
Jarder "ancolo and Associates !a2 (ffice, failed to e5ercise certain
responsibilities over matters under the charge of his la2 firm. As a senior
partnerB,C he failed to abide to the principle of Dcommand responsibilityD. 5 5
5.
5 5 5 5
Respondent Atty. Janus Jarder after all is a seasoned practitioner, having
passed the bar in ,44; and practicing la2 up to the present. 'e holds
himself out to the public as a la2 firm designated as Jarder "ancolo and
Associates !a2 (ffice. 8t behooves Atty. Janus T. Jarder to e5ert ordinary
diligence to find out 2hat is going on in his la2 firm, to ensure that all
la2yers in his firm act in conformity to the Code of #rofessional
Responsibility. As a partner, it is his responsibility to provide efficacious
control of court pleadings and other documents that carry the name of the
la2 firm. 'ad he done that, he could have =no2n the unethical practice of
his la2 partner Atty. Charlie !. "ancolo. Respondent Atty. Janus T. Jarder
failed to perform this tas= and is administratively liable under Canon ,, Rule
,.*, of the Code of #rofessional Responsibility.
>
(n ,4 eptember )**>, in Resolution 0o. E.888-)**>-4>, the "oard of
&overnors of the 8"# approved 2ith modification the Report and
Recommendation of the 8nvestigating Commissioner. The Resolution states?
RE(!.E% to A%(#T and A##R(.E, as it is hereby A%(#TE% and
A##R(.E%, 2ith modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
8nvestigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
this Resolution as Anne5 DADF and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable la2s and rules, and
considering Respondent Atty. "ancolo7s violation of Rule 4.*,, Canon 4 of
the Code of #rofessional Responsibility, Atty. Charlie !. "ancolo is hereby
6#E0%E% from the practice of la2 for one (,) year.
'o2ever, 2ith regard to the charge against Atty. Janus T. Jarder, the "oard
of &overnors RE(!.E% as it is hereby RE(!.E% to A:E0%, as it is
hereby A:E0%E% the Recommendation of the 8nvestigating Commissioner,
and A##R(.E the %8:8A! of the case for lac= of merit.
9
Tapay and Rustia filed a :otion for Reconsideration. !i=e2ise, Atty. "ancolo
filed his :otion for Reconsideration dated )) %ecember )**>. Thereafter,
Atty. Jarder filed his separate Consolidated CommentGReply to
Complainants7 :otion for Reconsideration and Comment $iled by
Complainants dated )4 January )**9.
8n Resolution 0o. EE-)*,)-,>; dated 4 June )*,), the 8"# "oard of
&overnors denied both complainants7 and Atty. "ancolo7s motions for
reconsideration. The 8"# "oard found no cogent reason to reverse the
findings of the 8nvestigating Commissioner and affirmed Resolution 0o.
E.888-)**>-4> dated ,4 eptember )**>.
The Courts Ruling
After a careful revie2 of the records of the case, 2e agree 2ith the findings
and recommendation of the 8"# "oard and find reasonable grounds to hold
respondent Atty. "ancolo administratively liable.
Atty. "ancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before
the (ffice of the (mbudsman 2as signed in his name by a secretary of his
la2 office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 4.*, of Canon 4 of the Code of
#rofessional Responsibility, 2hich provides?
CANN 9
A !A"#$R %&A!! NT, '(R$CT!# R (N'(R$CT!#, A%%(%T (N T&$
)NA)T&R(*$' +RACT(C$ F !A".
Rule 9.01 , A la-.er shall not /elegate to an. un0uali1ie/ 2erson the
2er1or3ance o1 an. tas4 -hich 5. la- 3a. onl. 5e 2er1or3e/ 5. a
3e35er o1 the 6ar in goo/ stan/ing.
This rule 2as clearly e5plained in the case of CambaliHa v. Cristal-
Tenorio,
4
2here 2e held?
The la2yer7s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthoriHed practice of la2 is founded on public interest and policy. #ublic
policy re/uires that the practice of la2 be limited to those individuals found
duly /ualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on
the la2yer is an individual and limited privilege sub<ect to 2ithdra2al 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 la2 and not
sub<ect to the disciplinary control of the Court. 8t devolves upon a la2yer to
see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
profession en<oin him not to permit his professional services or his name to
be used in aid of, or to ma=e possible the unauthoriHed practice of la2 by,
any agency, personal or corporate. And, the la2 ma=es it a misbehavior on
his part, sub<ect to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthoriHed
practice of la2.
8n Republic v. Ienric= %evelopment Corporation,
,*
2e held that the
preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal 2or= involving the
practice of la2 2hich is reserved e5clusively for members of the legal
profession. Atty. "ancolo7s authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to
another la2yer, he may not delegate it to a non-la2yer. $urther, under the
Rules of Court, counsel7s signature serves as a certification that (,) he has
read the pleadingF ()) to the best of his =no2ledge, information and belief
there is good ground to support itF and (1) it is not interposed for
delay.
,,
Thus, by affi5ing one7s signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone
2ho has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to
the document.1wphi1
8n his :otion for Reconsideration dated )) %ecember )**>, Atty. "ancolo
2ants us to believe that he 2as a victim of circumstances or of manipulated
events because of his unconditional trust and confidence in his former la2
partner, Atty. Jarder. 'o2ever, Atty. "ancolo did not ta=e any steps to rectify
the situation, save for the affidavit he gave to Rustia denying his signature
to the Complaint filed before the (ffice of the (mbudsman. Atty. "ancolo
had an opportunity to maintain his innocence 2hen he filed 2ith the 8"# his
Joint Ans2er (2ith Atty. Jarder) dated )@ January )**@. Atty. "ancolo,
ho2ever, admitted that prior to the preparation of the Joint Ans2er, Atty.
Jarder threatened to file a disbarment case against him if he did not
cooperate. Thus, he 2as constrained to allo2 Atty. Jarder to prepare the
Joint Ans2er. Atty. "ancolo simply signed the verification 2ithout seeing the
contents of the Joint Ans2er.
8n the Ans2er, Atty. "ancolo categorically stated that because of some
minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapay and
Rustia 2ere signed by his secretary, albeit 2ith his tolerance. 6ndoubtedly,
Atty. "ancolo violated the Code of #rofessional Responsibility by allo2ing a
non-la2yer to affi5 his signature to a pleading. This violation 8s an act of
falsehood 2hich 8 a ground for disciplinary action.
The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder 2as
directly involved, had =no2ledge of, or even participated in the 2rongful
practice of Atty. "ancolo in allo2ing or tolerating his secretary to sign
pleadings for him. Thus, 2e agree 2ith the finding of the 8"# "oard that
Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable.
8n sum, 2e find that the suspension of Atty. "ancolo from the practice of la2
for one year is 2arranted. 3e also find proper the dismissal of the case
against Atty. larder.
3'ERE$(RE, 2e %8:8 the complaint against Atty. Janus T. larder for
lac= of merit.
3e find respondent Atty. Charlie !. "ancolo administratively liable for
violating Rule 4.*, of Canon 4 of the Code of #rofessional Responsibility.
'e is hereby 6#E0%E% from the practice of la2 for one year effective
upon finality of this %ecision. 'e is 2arned that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt 2ith more severely.
!et a copy of this %ecision be attached to respondent Atty. Charlie !.
"ancoloJs record in this Court as attorney. $urther, let copies of this
%ecision be furnished to the 8ntegrated "ar of the #hilippines and the (ffice
of the Court Administrator, 2hich is directed to circulate them to all the
courts in the country for their information and guidance.
7%ection 3. Signature and address. K Every pleading must be signed by
the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address
2hich should not be a post office bo5.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read
the pleadingF that to the best of his =no2ledge, information, and belief there
is good ground to support itF and that it is not interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. 'o2ever, the court may, in
its discretion, allo2 such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same 2as due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel
2ho deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation
of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails
promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be sub<ect to
appropriate disciplinary action.