LORETA EDERANGO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. LAURO TAPUCAR, DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT.

Conformably to the constant policy of this Court to vitalize the
constitutional right to petition and to conduct inquiry into an administrative
complaint, even if at times on the face thereof the liability of respondent is
none-too apparent,^[1]
the imputation of malfeasance or misfeasance is made the subject of an
inquiry.  When one Loreta
Ederango therefore charged Judge Lauro
L. Tapucar with immorality, the matter was referred
for investigation, recommendation, and report to Justice Milagros A. German of
the Court of Appeals.  She conducted such
investigation on March 26, 1979,
complainant being represented by Attorney Tranquilino
O. Calo, Jr., and respondent Judge Lauro Tapucar being represented
by Attorney Wilfred Asis.

She saw to it that the matter was attended to with dispatch and
promptness.  When respondent Judge sought
to defer the investigation,^[2]
this was her response:  “Ah, no, I
do not accept postponements.  The parties
have come all the way from Agusan at such great
expense.  I, myself, am a very busy woman
and these investigations disturb my judicial work.  You see all these cases (motion­ing towards
the pile of rollos behind her), I have to attend to
them, but I want to finish this investigation by tomorrow.  I will receive the evidence for the
complainant today, you can cross-examine the witnesses.  You can present your evidence later, subject
to the cross-examination by the other party. 
That is the way we proceed here in the Court of Appeals.”^[3]

To which respondent Judge replied thus:  “But Mayor Tranquilino
Calo, Jr., has already charged me with the same crime
of immorality in another administrative case which has been investigated by
Justice Villasor and this is but a rehash of the same
charge.  I have filed a motion to dismiss
in that administrative case, where the witnesses are the same Loreta and Bernardita Ederango being presented here.”^[4]
When Attorney Calo, Jr. was asked whether that was
true, this is his answer:  “That is
true, Your Honor.”^[5]
Justice German then continued: 
“Meaning there is a duplication of the complaint or the same
grounds and the witnesses are the same on the same incidents?”^[6]
The response of Attorney Calo Jr. was:  “The same witnesses, Your Honor.”^[7]
This comment was therefore made by Justice German:  “The same witnesses.  Then there does appear a duplication * *
*.”^[8]

She followed with this pertinent question from her:  “Do I understand from you, Atty. Calo, that you have filed a complaint for immorality
amounting to serious misconduct against Judge Tapucar
of the CFI of Agusan del Norte?”^[9]
The reply from Attorney Calo Jr.:  “That is correct, Your Honor.”^[10]
Again, from Justice German:  “As
stated in the affidavit here subscribed and sworn by Bernardita
Ederango?”^[11]
Attorney Calo’s answer:  “That is correct, Your Honor.”^[12]
She was quite thorough.  She pursued the
matter thus:  “And for facts
comprising what dates?”^[13]
Attorney Calo made the commendable admission:  “The same dates.”^[14]
From Justice German:  “The same
dates * * * because I was thinking you might have charged Judge Tapucar using the same facts but on different dates than
those in the administrative case before Justice Villasor.  So on the same facts, on the same dates in
the same affidavits?”^[15]
This admission by Attorney Calo:  “Yes, Your Honor.”^[16]
Another relevant question from Justice German: 
“What’s the status of that case before Justice Villasor?”^[17]
To which, Attorney Calo answered:  “I had rested my case, and Judge Tapucar filed a motion to dismiss.”^[18]
When it was admitted by counsel for complainant that there was “no
resolution yet,”^[19]
respondent Judge moved “to dismiss the instant case [on the ground that]
there is no evidence to sustain it.”^[20]

On April 4, 1979,
the report and recommendation of Justice German was submitted to this
Court.  Insofar as pertinent, it reads
thus:  “As indicated, both parties,
assisted by counsel, appeared on March
26, 1979 at 2:00 o’clock
in the afternoon in the chambers of the undersigned behind closed doors.  It appears that this complaint is a
duplication of the very same complaint for immorality against the herein
respondent which the complainant with Mayor Tranquilino
Calo, Jr. as counsel, filed with the Supreme Court,
docketed as Administrative Case No. 1740 which Justice Guillermo Villasor of this Court is currently investigating.  During the hearing, complainant’s counsel
admitted that this complaint is the very same complaint lodged against the same
respondent * * *.  Further clarified by
the investigator if the acts complained of covered the same date or dates
against the said respondent, complainant’s counsel admitted that they are
exactly the same.  * * * At this writing,
complainant has rested her case, while respondent Judge has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of merit. 
A happy-to-note revelation is that the herein respondent has voluntarily
inhibited himself from hearing the criminal case filed by complainant Ederango for libel, No. 765 CFI, Butuan
City which I pointed out in my letter to Director Buena on February 27 (3rd
paragraph) in fairness to Ederango.  Recommendation:  In view of this development, the dismissal of
this complaint is strongly recommended, it being a repetition, if not a
reiteration, of the very same complaint against the same respondent covering
the same dates, with the same witnesses, and for the same offense of
immorality.”^[21]

The recommendation for the dismissal of this adminis­trative case
must be accepted.  Justice German is to
be commended for the thoroughness of her investigation, result­ing in her
eliciting the admission indicative of the impropriety of the conduct of
Attorney Tranquilino O. Calo,
Jr.  A member of the bar intent on
preserving his good standing should exercise greater care in filing an
administrative complaint, knowing fully well that there was a previous identical
complaint.  The only difference between
Administrative Case No. 1740 against the same respondent Judge pending
investigation by Justice Guillermo Villasor of the
Court of Appeals is that outside of the charge of immorality, other charges
were included, such as serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law,
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as the Rules of
Court and the Constitution either delaying rendering judgment, or rendering
judgment through negligence and ignorance. 
For good measure, the accusation of disrespect to the President of the Philippines
was included.  As pointed out by
respondent Judge in his motion to dismiss before this Court, except for the
charge of immorality, no witnesses whatsoever were presented to substantiate
the other alleged grounds for disciplinary action.  Precisely, the matter was referred to an
investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals to ascertain whether such an
allegation in the motion to dismiss is justified.  The question remains open, the report of
Justice Villasor being awaited.  The ruling of the Court is therefore limited
to the dismissal of this complaint for immorality against respondent Judge in
accordance with the recommendation of Justice German.

WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint is
dismissed.  Attorney Tranquilino
O. Calo, Jr. is censured for the impropriety
committed by him and for disrespect to this Court when he filed a later
complaint for the very same ground included in a previous administrative
complaint against respondent Judge.  Let
this resolution be entered on the records of both respondent Judge Lauro L. Tapucar and Attorney Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr.

Antonio, (Actg. Chairman), Concepcion,
Jr., and Santos,
JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., in the result.

Abad Santos J., did not take part.

Barredo, J., is on official leave.

^[1]
Cf. Tobias v. Ericta, Adm. Case No. 242-J,
July 29, 1972, 46 SCRA 83; Bartolome
v. De Borja, Adm. Case No. 1096-CFI, May 31,
1976, 71 SCRA 153.

^[2]
T. s. n., Session of March 26, 1979,
3.

^[3] Ibid,
4.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Ibid,
5.

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Ibid.

^[17] Ibid.

^[18] Ibid,
6.

^[19] Ibid.

^[20] Ibid.

^[21]
Report on the Investigation and Recommendation, March 30, 1979, 2-3.