Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305 April 21, 1995
DAN ALCANTARA, complainant, JUDGE CAMILO E. TAMIN and ATTY. RUFINO ALOOT, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
ROMERO, J.:
Complainant filed a letter-complaint dated February 8, 1994, charging the respondents with grave misconduct, gross negligence in the performance of duties, grave abuse of discretion, and bias and partiality, in connection with Special Proceedings Nos. 90-30, 005 (2250-2324) for Settlement of the Estate of Braulio Villasis.
Respondent judge allegedly ignored the motions filed by complainant questioning the irregularities committed by his predecessor, and that he issued an order allowing his brother's mother-in-law to be an oppositor in the proceedings even when he had already inhibited himself from the case. Complainant further claimed that respondent judge had been staying in the mansion of the decedent. These allegations were all denied by respondent judge.
Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, in his memorandum to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa dated February 7, 1995, found respondent judge to have committed grave abuse of discretion "in rendering the order allowing his brother's mother-in-law to be an oppositor in the special civil action knowing fully well that on very same date he no longer have (sic) the jurisdiction to act on the motion of the would be oppositor."
The other charges, however, were found to be unmeritorious.
Mr. Bernad made the following recommendation:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court with the recommendation that Judge Camilo E. Tamin be meted the penalty of fine to the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act or offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. The administrative case against Atty. Rufino Aloot should be REFERRED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for whatever action it may deem proper.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to ADOPT the above-mentioned recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, and hereby imposes a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) upon respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act or offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
The administrative case against Attorney Rufino Aloot is hereby REFERRED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for whatever action it may deem proper.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.
Melo, J., is on leave.
Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al.
This is an administrative case, Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Camilo E. Tamin and Atty. Rufino Aloot (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305, April 21, 1995), where Complainant Dan Alcantara filed charges of grave misconduct, gross negligence, grave abuse of discretion, and bias and partiality against respondent Judge Tamin and Atty. Aloot in connection with Special Proceedings Nos. 90-30, 005 (2250-2324) for Settlement of the Estate of Braulio Villasis. The key issue is whether respondent Judge Tamin committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing his brother's mother-in-law to be an oppositor in the proceedings despite his inhibition. The Supreme Court, adopting the recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, found that respondent Judge Tamin indeed committed grave abuse of discretion and imposed a fine of P5,000 with a stern warning. The case against Atty. Aloot was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Quick Answers
- What is Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al. about?
- This is an administrative case, Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Camilo E. Tamin and Atty. Rufino Aloot (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305, April 21, 1995), where Complainant Dan Alcantara filed charges of grave misconduct, gross negligence, grave abuse of discretion, and bias and partiality against respondent Judge Tamin and Atty. Aloot in connection with Special Proceedings Nos. 90-30, 005 (2250-2324) for Settlement of the Estate of Braulio Villasis. The key issue is whether respondent Judge Tamin committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing his brother's mother-in-law to be an oppositor in the proceedings despite his inhibition. The Supreme Court, adopting the recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, found that respondent Judge Tamin indeed committed grave abuse of discretion and imposed a fine of P5,000 with a stern warning. The case against Atty. Aloot was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
- Which court decided Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al.?
- Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al. was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al. decided?
- Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al. (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305) was decided on Apr 21, 1995.
- What is the citation for Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al.?
- Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305, Apr 21, 1995 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305, Apr 21, 1995 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1995). Dan alcantara vs. Camilo E. Tamin, et al. (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/dan-alcantara-vs-camilo-e-tamin-et-al
Related Cases
- Alcantara v. TaminA.M. No. RTJ-95-1305 (Resolution) • Apr 21, 1995
- Gregorio Limpot Lumapas vs. Judge Camilo E. Tamin, RTC Molave, Zamboanga Del Sur, Branch 23A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 • Jun 27, 2000
- Lumapas v. TaminA.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 (Resolution) • Jun 27, 2000
- Gregorio Limpot Lumapas vs. Judge Camilo E. TaminA.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 • Jun 26, 2003
- Alfredo Y. Chu vs. Judge Camilo E. TaminA.M. No. RTJ-03-1786 • Aug 28, 2003
- Ariosa v. TaminA.M. No. RTJ-92-798 • Nov 15, 2000
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case