SC CIRCULAR NO. 55-99, September 10, 1999

In compliance with the directive of the Court, hereunder is the
resolution of the Court En Banc in Administrative Case No. 4148 entitled
“Remedios Ramirez Tapucar vs. Lauro L. Tapucar” dated August 31, 1999, quoted in
full for the information and guidance of all concerned, to wit:

Before the Court is a complaint on April 12, 1999, by complaint
Remedios R. Tapucar, through a manifestation and motion alleging that respondent
ex-Judge Lauro L. Tapucar continues to practice law despite his disbarment
pursuant to our Decision promulgated on July 30, 1998.

“Complaint cited a number of instances in which respondent
acted as lawyer, namely:

“1. During the hearing held on March 19, 1999, as counsel for
defendant in Rapid City Realty Dev’t Corp. v. Rosalina M. Pascual, et. al. Civil
Case No. 3504-A, before the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Branch 71;

“2. During a pre-trial held on March 5, 1999, as counsel for
plaintiffs in Heirs of Marcos de los Santos v. Jose Esparanga, Civil Case No.
98-4917, before the RTC, Antipolo City, Branch 72;

“3. During a hearing held on March 19, 1999, as counsel for the
intervenor in Paz C. Levya, et al, V. Benjamin Leyva, at al., Civil Case No.
96-3949, before the RTC, Antipolo City, Branch 73;

“4. During the hearing held on March 19, 1999, as counsel for
the “applicants” in Civil Case No. 95-1611;

“5. During the hearing on March 22, 1999, as counsel for the
accused in People v. Ricardo de la Cruz, Criminal Case No. 96-12812, before the
RTC, Antipolo, Branch 74.¹

“Complaint noted that the respondent’s petition for a notarial
commission, copy of which was attached to her manifestation and motion,
respondent stated that

“…he is member of the Philippine Bar now the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines of good standing since 1955 up to present with 35 years in
the active practice of law and 8 years as District and Executive Judge of the
defunct Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City for 7
years.”

“This declaration of respondent was allegedly made in his
petition dated December 22, 1998, or after our decision disbarring him was
promulgated on July 30, 1998. Complaint pointed out the respondent deliberately
omitted to mention in his petition the fact of his earlier disbarment.

“Complaint averred that respondent’s act are “willful, vile and
malevolent demonstration, no less, of respondent’s utter disdain, mockery
travesty and scorn for the Honorable Court and of its
Decision…”²

“In a resolution dated June 15, 1999, we referred the matter to
the Office of the Bar Confidant for comment, which said office submitted to the
Court on July 19, 1999.

“In its comment, the Office of the Bar Confidant revealed that
its office has received a number of inquires regarding the status of respondent
as member of the PhilippineBar. One inquiry came from Asst. Public Prosecutor
Ireneo M. Quintano, who stated that respondent entered his appearance as defense
counsel in a case before the San Juan Metropolitan Ttial Court. According to
Prosecutor Quintano, respondent insisted that he could still practice law
despite his disbarment, since there is no official cetification and memorandum
circular from the Supreme Court disallowing him from appearing in court.

“The Office of the Bar Confidant further stated:

“It is ourt respectful submission that the decision of the
Court ordering the disbarment of respondent became final as of the date, i.e.,
November 5, 1998, he received a copy of the October 6, 1998 resolution. His
non-filling of a motion for reconsideration of the said resolution was a tacit
acquiescence thereto. But lo and behold, true to his cavalier attitude he once
again finds an occasion to display his intellectual arrogance b« resorting to
technicality which is more imagined that real Mr flawed justification regarding
his capacity to stili practice lav despite his disbarment] is nothing but a lame
excuse to deceive judges into allowing him to appear in courts on several
occasions. He made matters worse when he [stated in his petition for a notarial
commission] that he is a member [in]’ good standing of the Philippine Bar and
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines up to the present. Such misrepresentation
was done as respondent’ knew fully well that membership [in] aood standing in
the Philippine Bar is a condition sine’qua non for appointment as a notary
public.

It is thus, our respectful submission that his open and willful
defiance of, as well as his flagrant attempt at circumventing, a lawful Court
order, which, by the very nature of the acts, constitute contempt of court.
Verily, his acts may be viewed as an improper conduct, to say the least, tending
to directly impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice, for
which he should not go unpunished if only to impress upon him that compliance
with Court orders is not subject to the whims of the
parties.”

‘We note further that in a Respectful Motion filed by
esponcient before the Court through the Office of the Bar Confidant on September
3, 1888, respondent stated that he humbly accepts the Honorable Court’s
verdict,”³ in regard to his lisbarment. He moved to be granted a
sufficient period of time to wind up work on cases he nandied. But we denied
said motion in resolution dated October 6, 1998 for Jack of merit, precisely to
rovide him no excuse to circumvent the decision striking out his ame from the
roil of attorneys.

“Considering the allegations of complainant and the ornments by
the Office, of the Bar Confidant, in the light of our decision promulgated on
July 30, 1998, ordering the disbarment respondent and our Resolution dated
October 6, 1998, denying spondent’s motion for a winding up period, the Court
resolved to:

“1. Order respondent to (a) abide faithfully with the
abovecited ecision and Resolution concerning his disbarment; (b) cease id desist
from practicing iaw, including acting as Notary Public; id (c) within an
unexisndible period of ten (10) days comment i the abovecited complaint (by way
of manifestation and motion) filed by complainant on Anri! 12, 1999; and show
cause why spondsni should not be held in contempt of court with rresponding
penalties imposed on him pursuant to the Rules of Court, particularly Ruie71 on
contempt, for unauthorised practice iaw and disobedience to the abovecited
decision, Resolution and related Orders of this Court.

“2. Order the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Spoio City to immediately cancel or cause the cancellation of indent’s
Commission as Notary Public, if such Commission indeed was issued to him for the
December 31, 2000, hence already after his disbarment on July 30, 1998.

Attorneys Office as well as lhe InSgrated Bar Confidant to
circulize copies of this Resolution to all concerned, particularly the courts,
the Office of the State Prosecutor, and the Public Attorneys Office as well as
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its chapters, for the information and
guidance.

“x x x.”

September __10__, 1999.