AM RTJ 92 798; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-92-798
Date: November 15, 2000
Case Parties/Title: JAVIER A. ARIOSA, complainant, vs. JUDGE CAMILO TAMIN, RTC BRANCH 23, MOLAVE, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case originated from a sworn letter-complaint dated January 15, 1992, filed by then Provincial Governor Javier A. Ariosa against Judge Camilo Tamin for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The charge stemmed from the judge’s Order dated December 5, 1991, dismissing two libel cases (Criminal Case Nos. 91-10-212 and 91-10-213, “People vs. Billy Yu, et al.”) on the ground that his Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction, as libel carries a penalty of arresto mayor or a fine. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated November 19, 1992, adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation and found Judge Tamin guilty of ignorance of the law, imposing a fine of P5,000.00. Judge Tamin initially filed but later withdrew a Motion for Reconsideration. Subsequently, in a Manifestation dated May 17, 2000, he assailed the 1992 Supreme Court Resolution as a “patent nullity,” arguing the Court had no constitutional jurisdiction and that the OCA illegally usurped appellate power. He used intemperate language, describing the decision as “roughly an equivalent to a skull offering before the jurisprudential banquet of history” and asked for it to be set aside. The Court required him to show cause why he should not be disciplined for this language. In his Compliance dated September 7, 2000, he expressed contrition, acknowledging his use of intemperate language was due to a state of “deep depression and despair,” and requested amnesty for judges guilty of administrative charges not involving immorality or dishonesty.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Camilo Tamin is administratively liable for using intemperate and undignified language against the Supreme Court in his Manifestation.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Judge Camilo Tamin guilty of using intemperate and undignified language against the Court, in clear violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Court held that his vindictive tone and acrimonious language in the Manifestation were an undignified, repulsive, and unbecoming act for a magistrate. Judges are expected to act with self-restraint, civility, and finesse in their words, especially when addressing the Highest Tribunal. The use of vulgar and curt language to demean the Court transcends the bounds of constructive criticism and fair comment. Such behavior undermines the integrity and hallowed image of the Supreme Court as the final bastion of justice. Accordingly, the Court imposed upon Judge Tamin a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.