A.M. No. 1720, 1911, 2300-CFI - Dy Teban Hardware and Auto Supply Co. vs. Tapucar

Administrative Matter No. 1720 (Dy Teban Hardware & Auto Supply Co. Complaint)

Dy Teban Hardware & Auto Supply Co., a registered partnership, filed a complaint seeking the removal of Judge Lauro L. Tapucar for serious misconduct and inefficiency.
The complaint arose from Judge Tapucar’s handling of the case “Restituta Gindoy vs. Hon. Lauro Tapucar and Heirs of Dy Teban represented by Florante Dy,” an illegal detainer matter originally decided by the City Court of Butuan.
Key factual background:

The case involved three leased apartments originally rented by Restituta Gindoy to Dy Teban (later deceased) and then to his heirs.
The City Court had rendered judgment favoring the Heirs of Dy Teban by granting a seven-year occupancy period.
On appeal, Judge Tapucar, presiding over the Court of First Instance, affirmed the City Court’s decision.
Thereafter, upon certiorari review by the Supreme Court, the decision was reversed: the Heirs were ordered to vacate the premises, and damages plus attorney’s fees were imposed.

Prior to the finality of the Supreme Court decision, Judge Tapucar issued both a partial and then a final Writ of Execution.
The writs were executed with noted procedural irregularities including questions on proper service (failure to serve the adverse party), compliance with the three-day notice rule for motions, and possible issues regarding who was properly a party to the case.

The controversy included an unresolved issue whether the Court of First Instance or the City Court should have ordered the execution.
Although errors in judgment were noted, it was emphasized that minor errors in legal appreciation do not necessarily justify administrative sanctions such as dismissal.

In a verified letter complaint dated May 4, 1978, Melecia Monteroso charged Judge Tapucar with delay in the administration of justice, misconduct, dishonesty, and partiality in handling several civil cases (Civil Cases Nos. 1292, 1332, and 1681).
Additional allegations included:

The judge was accused of scandalously cohabiting with a mistress, Helen Pena, in Aupaga, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte.

Judge Tapucar responded, denying the charges as baseless.
On June 4, 1979, the Second Division of the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on most counts due to lack of a prima facie case but referred the immorality charge for further investigation.
Subsequent hearings were conducted by Justice Edgardo L. Paras of the Court of Appeals in September and October 1980.

Witnesses, including Atty. Tranquilino Calo, Carlos Repaso, Mayor Pedrito Carmona, and Benjamin Jaramillo, testified to the continuing cohabitation of Judge Tapucar and Helen Pena.
Testimonies described:

The conduct, as testified by multiple witnesses, indicated that despite earlier disciplinary action (a six-month suspension for a previous immorality charge), the judge’s immoral conduct was ongoing.

The investigator, Justice Paras, found clear evidence of the judge’s continued immoral conduct.
The evidence demonstrated that the judge, while still legally married to Remedios Ramirez, maintained a relationship with Helen Pena that spanned several years and showed consistent disregard for the ethical standards expected of a judicial officer.

Complainant Erna Uy, through a verified letter dated October 2, 1979, alleged that Judge Tapucar committed immoral, malicious, lascivious, and indecent acts directly against her during proceedings in Civil Case No. 2224 (“Mercado, et al vs. Erna Uy, et al”).
Key facts of the incident:

On September 3, 1979, at around 10:30 AM, a deputy sheriff (Bayani Gratifilo) arrived with a writ related to a property attachment.
At the request of the sheriff and following a delay in obtaining a bond, Erna Uy and her husband were summoned to the judge’s office.
In the judge’s office, after instructing her husband to wait outside, Judge Tapucar conducted a private conversation with Erna Uy.
During that private session, the judge made overtures that included kissing, affectionate gestures, and proposals implying a personal, extrajudicial relationship.
The proceedings were characterized by attempts of the judge to influence the outcome of the civil case in exchange for his personal favors.

Although Erna Uy did not personally appear in the investigative hearing due to her absence abroad, her husband Norberto David testified in detail confirming the events.
The affidavit of Deputy Sheriff Gratifilo further supported the occurrence of a private conversation and the exclusion of the complainant’s husband.
The evidence indicated a breach of the ethical standards of judicial conduct, particularly the expectation of transparency in proceedings and the maintenance of professional boundaries.

Whether a judge’s erroneous rulings in matters of execution, service of process, and proper determination of parties warrant his removal from service.
Whether the errors in appreciating legal requirements, such as executing writs without proper service or adherence to procedural rules, justify imposing the severe penalty of dismissal from the judiciary.

Whether Judge Tapucar’s conduct in his personal relations, specifically his cohabitation with Helen Pena and his alleged indecent acts with complainants, constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Whether the evidence of continuing immoral behavior by a judicial officer, despite previous disciplinary actions, undermines the integrity and impartiality required of judges.
Whether the private conversation and subsequent overtures made to Erna Uy, in the context of a pending civil case before his court, demonstrate a misuse of judicial power for personal gain.
Whether a judge’s personal misconduct, which tarnishes the public image of the judiciary and undermines public confidence, should be met with the penalty of separation from service.