Remedios
Ramirez Tapucar vs. Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar
A.C.
No. 4148. July 30, 1998
Facts:
Remedios
Ramirez Tapucar, the complainant, and Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, the respondent,
were married on October 29, 1953 at the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church in
Quezon City. They established their residence in Antipolo, Rizal, where eight
of their eleven children were born. In 1962 respondent relocated his family to
Dadiangas, Cotabato (now Gen. Santos City), where his last three children were
born and where he practiced his profession until his appointment as a Court of First
Instance (CFI) Judge in Butuan City on
January 30, 1976. In August, 1976, shortly after being appointed as CFI Judge,
respondent began cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña, in Nasipit,
Agusan del Norte. On December 28, 1977, Elena gave birth to their first child,
named Ofelia Sembrano Peña. In view of this cohabitation, a certain Atty.
Tranquilino Calo filed an administrative complaint against respondent for
immorality. After investigation, the penalty of suspension from office for a
period of six months without pay was meted by this Court upon respondent. Despite
this penalty, respondent still continued to cohabit with Elena, giving rise to
another charge of immorality and other administrative cases, such as: conduct
unbecoming an officer of the court, and grossly immoral conduct. These cases
were consolidated and after investigation, this Court ordered his dismissal and
separation from the service. But his dismissal as a judge did not impel
respondent to mend his ways. He continued living with Elena, which resulted in
the birth on September 20, 1989, of their second child named Laella Peña
Tapucar. Moreover, he completely abandoned complainant and his children by
her.Respondent later moved from Nasipit, Agusan del Norte back to Antipolo,
Rizal, bringing along Elena and their two children. And on March 5, 1992,
respondent contracted marriage with Elena in a ceremony solemnized by MTC Judge
Isagani A. Geronimo of Antipolo, Rizal. This was done while the respondent's
marriage to complainant subsists, as nothing on record shows the dissolution
thereof.
Complainant, in the
meanwhile, had migrated to United States of America upon her retirement from
the government service in 1990. However, her children, who remained in
Antipolo, kept her posted of the misery they allegedly suffered because of
their father's acts, including deception and intrigues against them. Thus,
despite having previously withdrawn a similar case which she filed in 1976,
complainant was forced to file the present petition for disbarment under the
compulsion of the maternal impulse to shield and protect her children from the
despotic and cruel acts of their own father.
Complainant secured the
assistance of her eldest daughter, Atty. Ma. Susana Tapucar-Baua, to represent
her in this case. Consistent with Section
20, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the matter was referred to the Commission
on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation,
report and recommendation. After conducting a thorough investigation, the
Commission through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez recommended that respondent
be disbarred, and his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys. Mainly, this
was premised on the ground that, notwithstanding sanctions previously imposed
upon him by the Honorable Supreme Court, respondent continued the illicit
liaison with Elena.
Issue:
Whether or not the
respondent committed an act of gross immoral conduct, if so, does that
constitute a ground for his disbarment.
Held:
Yes.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed a grossly immoral conduct,
which constitutes a ground for his disbarment. In the present case, the record
shows that despite previous sanctions imposed upon him by this Court,
respondent continued his illicit liaison with a woman other than his
lawfully-wedded wife. The report of the Commissioner assigned to investigate
thoroughly the complaint found respondent far from contrite; on the contrary,
he exhibited a cavalier attitude, even arrogance, in the face of charges
against him. The IBP Board of Governors, tasked to determine whether he still
merited the privileges extended to a member of the legal profession, resolved
the matter against him. For indeed, evidence of grossly immoral conduct abounds
against him and could not be explained away. Keeping a mistress, entering into
another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and/or
mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family
obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer's oath. Such gross
misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in
respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and
his outright defiance of established norms.
All these could not but
put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the
administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate
disciplinary action. Well settled is the rule that good moral character is not
only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but it must
also remain intact in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive
and honored fraternity. There is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred
ministry in which a high-toned morality is more imperative than that of law.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that: Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage
in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
As this Court often reminds members of the Bar, they must live up to the
standards and norms expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals
and tenets embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers
must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, as well as morality
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all times
subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community approbation.
Needless to state, those whose conduct--both public and private-- fails this
scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings,
penalized accordingly.
A lawyer is expected at
all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
his clients. Exacted from him, as a member of the profession charged with the
responsibility to stand as a shield in the defense of what is right, are such
positive qualities of decency, truthfulness and responsibility that have been
compendiously described as "moral character." To achieve such end,
every lawyer needs to strive at all times to honor and maintain the dignity of
his profession, and thus improve not only the public regard for the Bar but also
the administration of justice.