Lumapas v.

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

FACTS:

This case is an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Camilo

Tamin for displaying an unusual interest by, among others, not issuing Writ of
Execution in favor of complainant Gregorio Limpot Lumapas despite the CAs
grant of Writ of Mandamus ordering him to do so

What happened?

Guillermo Lumapas died single and intestate and left a parcel of land
Complainant Gregorio, claiming to be the only son and heir of the deceased
Guillermo, succeeded in obtaining OCT No. 06-151 over the same parcel of land
BY substituting his name in the stead of Guillermo Lumapas in the cadastral
proceedings
Gregorio filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession/Ownership over the said
parcel of land against Alan U. Lumapas, et al. nephews and nieces of the
deceased Guillermo before the sala of respondent Judge Tamin
Also before Judge Tamins sala, Alan Lumapas et. al. also filed a complaint for
Recovery of the same parcel of land against Gregorio Limpot
two (2) cases were consolidated,
on February 12, 1991, Judge Tamin declared that Gregorio is the son of the deceased
Guillermo Lumapas and his sole heir, and ordered the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga
del Sur to register in the name of Gregorio Limpot Lumapas
Alan Lumapas and his co-heirs APPEALED the decision to the Court of
Appeals

CA declared

that Gregorio has NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVED that

he is the son of Gregorio Lumapas BUT HE HAS THE RIGHT OF

POSSESSION

Upon finality of CAs judgment, Gregorio

Execution

filed a Motion for

with respondent court

BUT Judge Tamin DENIED his motion for the reason that the CAs
award of possession was for Gregorio Limpot-LUMAPAS. However, Gregorio
Limpot is NOT Gregorio Limpot-LUMAPAS since the CA has declared that
Gregorio is NOT Guillermos son; he has NO LEGAL RIGHT to use LUMAPAS
as surname. "Gregorio Limpot-Lumapas" is therefore, a NON-ENTITY in so far as the law
is concerned for there is in fact no such person existing. (murag inamaw noh?)
So, Gregorio filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Court of Appeals

CA issued the Writ of Mandamus

But, Judge Tamin filed a motion for reconsideration before the

Court of Appeals. The MOTION WAS DENIED
Meanwhile, Alan Lumapas et. al. filed a petition for the cancellation
of Gregorio's OCT with respondent court
Judge Tamin GRANTED the petition for cancellation, thereby
REVERSING his decision favorable to Gregorio in the previous consolidated
civil cases
To cut the story short, Gregorio filed the instant complaint against
Judge Tamin for knowingly rendered an unjust judgment
Judge Tamin justified his refusal to issue a writ of execution for Civil Cases No. 9020,015 (2631) and No. 90-20,025 (2993) on the ground that the Court of Appeals
reversed his decision in those cases, thus making it of no force and effect.

ISSUE:
WON Judge Tamin erred in REFUSING to issue the writ of execution of
the decision of the Court of Appeals despite the standing Writ of Mandamus?

RULING:
YES, Judge Tamin ERRED in REFUSING to issue the writ of execution
of the decision of the Court of Appeals despite the standing Writ of Mandamus.
His refusal was without sufficient justification.

A writ of mandamus lies TO COMPEL THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF

EXECUTION. The writ of mandamus is one commanding a tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person that or who UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTS the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a DUTY resulting from an office, trust, or
station, OR UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDES another from the use and enjoyment OF
A RIGHT OR OFFICE to which such other is entitled, AND there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law . Mandamus literally
means "we command."
Here, the issuance

of a writ of execution is a MINISTERIAL DUTY on

the part of the court, after a judgment becomes FINAL AND EXECUTORY, and
leaves no room for the exercise of discretion.
In this case, the decision of the Court of Appeals became final and executory on March 13,
1995. Respondent was duty bound to grant complainant's petition filed on December 6, 1995, for the
issuance of the writ.

Judge Tamin had no option but to OBEY THE WRIT. Refusal to obey it is clearly a
violation of the order of, and a manifest disrespect towards, a court of superior jurisdiction.