Lumapas v. Tamin

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 (June 27, 2000)

Facts:

The case involves an administrative complaint against Judge Camilo E. Tamin, presiding judge of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court in Molave, Zamboanga del Sur. The complainant, Gregorio Limpot Lumapas, alleged that Judge Tamin knowingly rendered an unjust judgment and displayed unusual interest in the case despite prior censure from the Court of Appeals.

The background of the case begins with the death of Guillermo Lumapas on April 8, 1965, who left a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-157. Gregorio Limpot Lumapas claimed to be the only son and heir of Guillermo Lumapas and obtained OCT No. 06-151 over the same parcel of land on August 20, 1985, through a cadastral decree.

Gregorio filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession/Ownership against Alan U. Lumapas and others, who were nephews and nieces of the deceased, leading to the consolidation of two cases in the Regional Trial Court. On February 12, 1991, Judge Tamin ruled in favor of Gregorio, declaring him the sole heir and ordering the cancellation of the title in Guillermo's name.

However, the decision was appealed, and on February 28, 1994, the Court of Appeals ruled that Gregorio had not sufficiently proven his status as the legal heir but granted him a conditional right of possession over the land, dependent on the validity of his title. This decision became final and executory on March 13, 1995.

Despite this, Judge Tamin denied Gregorio's motion for execution of the appellate court's decision on December 6, 1995, stating that Gregorio was not a legal heir and thus had no standing to act on behalf of a non-existent entity. Gregorio subsequently filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which issued a writ on July 7, 1997. Judge Tamin, however, did not comply and instead filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

In the meantime, the Lumapas heirs filed a new case for the cancellation of Gregorio's OCT, which was also assigned to Judge Tamin. Gregorio moved for the judge's inhibition, claiming bias, but this was denied. He was later declared in default in the cancellation case, and Judge Tamin ruled against him on July 23, 1997.

Gregorio filed the present administrative complaint on September 11, 1997, alleging that Judge Tamin had knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in the cancellation case, contrary to his earlier ruling in favor of Gregorio.

Legal Issues:

1. Did Judge Tamin knowingly render an unjust judgment in SPL Case No. 96-50,022?
2. Did Judge Tamin err in refusing to issue a writ of execution for the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 31820?

Arguments:

• Complainant's Arguments:

  • Gregorio argued that Judge Tamin's refusal to issue a writ of execution was unjustified and constituted a violation of his rights as the rightful possessor of the land.
  • He contended that the judge's actions demonstrated bias and a disregard for the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals.

• Respondent's Arguments:

  • Judge Tamin defended his actions by asserting that the Court of Appeals had reversed his earlier decision, thus nullifying its effect.
  • He claimed that his judgment in SPL Case No. 96-50,022 was supported by evidence and in accordance with the law.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that Gregorio failed to provide sufficient evidence that Judge Tamin knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in SPL Case No. 96-50,022. The court emphasized that for such a charge to succeed, it must be shown that the judgment was contrary to law or unsupported by evidence, which was not established in this case.

However, the OCA agreed that Judge Tamin erred in refusing to issue the writ of execution after the Court of Appeals' decision became final and executory. The court reiterated that the issuance of a writ of execution is a ministerial duty that does not allow for discretion once a judgment is final. The refusal to obey the writ constituted a violation of a superior court's order.

The court ultimately decided to impose a fine of P20,000.00 on Judge Tamin for his failure to fulfill his ministerial duty and for disregarding the writ of mandamus. The court also warned that any future similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The issuance of a writ of execution is a ministerial duty of the court once a judgment becomes final and executory, leaving no room for discretion.
2. A writ of mandamus can compel a court to perform its duty when it unlawfully neglects to do so.
3. For a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment to prosper, there must be clear evidence of intent to perpetrate an injustice or a judgment that is patently contrary to law.