SC clears Carcar judge of raps filed by lawyer

The Supreme Court recently junked a complaint filed by a lawyer against a female judge in a Carcar court for alleged gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and grave abuse of discretion. The SC ruling said that Judge Grace Orma Ypil, "may not be held administratively liable" in adjudication of cases "unless the acts complained of were consummated with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice."

Lawyer Joe Noel Lawas filed on August 20, 2004 an administrative complaint against Judge Ypil, of the Municipal Trial Court in Carcar, for denying his two motions over a case of his client that was arrested by the police for alleged possession of jai alai tally sheets.

The SC said, "complainant failed to adduce any evidence to prove" that the prosecution and the judge ruled with bias, fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill will, bad faith or had deliberately intended to do an injustice when she rendered judgment denying the motions.

Lawas was the legal counsel of Wilfredo Carang who, on September 26, 2002, was arrested by the police at Carcar while riding a motorcycle for allegedly possessing jai alai tally sheets. He was also the legal counsel of Dodju Navaja Carang, the owner of the motorcycle the police also seized.

On January 14, 2004, Lawas filed a motion before Ypil's court for the release of Dodju's motorcycle, contending that the latter was merely the owner of the vehicle and thus not liable for the offense charged against Wilfredo. Six days after, Ypil commented that Lawas failed to prove that Dodju did not conspire with the alleged gambling activity of Wilfredo by allowing the use of his motorcycle.

On February 11, Ypil denied the motion declaring that, since the case was still pending, the motorcycle will still be used as evidence by the prosecution. She said the motorcycle's original registration was not shown in court and that Dodju did not appear in court to prove his innocence. Lawas protested contending that the prosecution neither contested nor opposed Dodju's ownership of the motorcycle thus Ypil should have ordered it released. On February 27, he filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence or a formal objection to an opponent's pleadings.

On March 8, 2004, Ypil issued an order denying the two motions. For the first motion, Ypil said that Dodju was "not a party to the case since he has not intervened nor entered his appearance" as such. For the second motion Ypil said, "the court wants to observe the manner and demeanor of the accused and his witnesses on the witness stand and can best decide this case based on the presentation of evidence for the defense."

On April 20, 2005 Ypil wrote the Office of the Court Administrator asking for the dismissal of the complaint against her. The OCA in turn recommended for the dismissal of the case and the SC agreed saying it is doing so as an "exercise of judicial discretion."

The SC said a judge should not be held liable for every erroneous decision he renders, and that nobody who tries the facts or interprets the law in administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. - Liv G. Campo