Ederango v. Tapucar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Loreta Ederango charged Judge Lauro L. Tapucar with immorality. The complaint was referred for investigation to Justice Milagros A. German of the Court of Appeals. Procedural History: During the investigation, it was revealed that the complainant's counsel, Attorney Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., admitted that the current complaint for immorality was a duplication of a previous administrative case (Administrative Case No. 1740) filed with the Supreme Court, also against Judge Tapucar, which was being investigated by Justice Guillermo Villasor. The same witnesses and the same facts and dates were involved. The respondent Judge moved to dismiss the instant case on the ground of duplication and lack of evidence. The Petition: The investigating Justice recommended the dismissal of the complaint due to its repetitive nature. The Supreme Court, in its resolution, considered the recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether the administrative complaint for immorality against respondent Judge Lauro L. Tapucar should be dismissed on the ground that it is a duplication of a previously filed identical complaint. Whether Attorney Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. should be censured for filing a duplicative administrative complaint.
Ruling
The 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. This resolution is to be entered on the records of both respondent Judge Lauro L. Tapucar and Attorney Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal of the complaint: The Court accepted the recommendation for dismissal based on the findings of Justice German. It was established during the investigation that the complaint filed by Loreta Ederango was a duplication of Administrative Case No. 1740, which was already pending investigation by Justice Guillermo Villasor. The complainant's counsel admitted that the grounds, facts, dates, and witnesses were the same as in the previous complaint. The Court emphasized the policy of vitalizing the constitutional right to petition but also noted the impropriety of filing repetitive complaints. The Court's ruling is limited to the dismissal of this specific complaint for immorality, as the other charges in the previous case were still under investigation. On the issue of censuring Attorney Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr.: The Court found Attorney Calo, Jr. liable for impropriety and disrespect to the Court. Filing a duplicative administrative complaint, knowing that an identical one was already pending, constitutes misconduct. A member of the bar is expected to exercise greater care in filing such complaints to preserve their good standing. The censure serves as a disciplinary measure for his actions, and the resolution is to be recorded in his professional record.
Main Doctrine
An administrative complaint that is a duplication of a previously filed identical complaint against the same respondent, involving the same facts and witnesses, may be dismissed. Counsel filing such a complaint may be censured for impropriety and disrespect to the Court.