Tapay v.

Bancolo

Facts: A complaint, which was allegedly signed by Bancolo, was filed against Tpaay and Rustia
for usurpation of authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices. When
Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, Rustia informed about the complaint
and Bancolo denied that he represented the complainant and he declared that the signature in the
complaint was not his. Bancolo then signed an affidavit denying his signature in the complaint.
However, Bancolo’s legal assistant issued an affidavit that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted
the complainant’s case and was signed by the office secretary per Bancolo’sinstructions.
Thereafter, Tapay and Rustia filed a disbarment against Bancolo and his partner, Atty. Jarder for
allegedly subjecting them to harassment.
Issue: WON Bancolo assisted in the unauthorized practice of law (canon 9).
Ruling: Yes.
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he �led for a former client before the Office of the
Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office.
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.
In Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation , we 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. Bancolo's 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.
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.
SUSPENDED for 1 year.