AC 4148; (July, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4148; July 30, 1998
REMEDIOS RAMIREZ TAPUCAR, complainant, vs. Atty. LAURO L. TAPUCAR, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, for grossly immoral conduct, specifically for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña under scandalous circumstances. The complainant and respondent were married on October 29, 1953. In August 1976, shortly after his appointment as a CFI Judge, respondent began cohabiting with Elena Peña in Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, resulting in the birth of their first child on December 28, 1977. For this, respondent was previously suspended from office for six months without pay in an administrative case. Despite this penalty, he continued the cohabitation, leading to another administrative case and his eventual dismissal from the judiciary on January 31, 1981. Respondent persisted in living with Elena, resulting in the birth of a second child on September 20, 1989, and completely abandoned his lawful wife and their children. On March 5, 1992, respondent contracted marriage with Elena in Antipolo, Rizal, while his marriage to the complainant remained subsisting. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline, recommended respondent’s disbarment.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar is DISBARRED. The Supreme Court ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court found that respondent’s acts of keeping a mistress, entering into a second marriage while his first marriage subsisted, and abandoning his lawful wife and children constituted grossly immoral conduct. This conduct showed a serious flaw in his moral character, disregard for family obligations and decency, and defiance of established norms, which put the legal profession in disrepute. The Court emphasized that good moral character is a continuing requirement for the practice of law, and respondent’s cavalier and arrogant attitude in the face of the charges, despite previous sanctions, aggravated his infractions. The power to disbar is exercised with caution, but respondent’s gross misbehavior over a long period warranted the ultimate penalty.