ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M.
LAWAS vs. YPIL
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 3 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1656-MTJ (Atty. Joe Noel C. Lawas vs. Judge Grace Orma E. Ypil.)
For consideration is the administrative complaint dated 20 August 2004, filed by Atty. Joe Noel C. Lawas, charging Judge Grace Orma E. Ypil, Municipal Trial Court, Carcar, Cebu City, with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Incompetence and Grave Abuse of Discretion, relative to Criminal Case No. 5399 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Carang Y Navaja."
Complainant was the legal counsel of Wilfredo Carang, the accused in Criminal Case No. 5399 for violation of Section 1(D) of Presidential Decree No. 1602 (Illegal Possession of Jai Alai Tally Sheets). Accused Wilfredo Carang was arrested while on board a motorcycle by police personnel at Carcar, Cebu City, for allegedly possessing jai alai tally sheets without legal authority.
Complainant also acted as legal counsel for Dodju Navaja Carang, who is said to be the owner of the motorcycle which was confiscated by the police.
On 14 January 2004, Dodju Carang, through complainant, filed a motion for the release of the motorcycle, claiming that he is the owner thereof and that he is not liable for the offense charged against accused Wilfredo Carang. This was denied by respondent Judge in an Order dated 11 February 2004, for the reasons that the motorcycle should not be released because it is evidence for the prosecution and that the case is still pending. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration. After the prosecution rested its case, complainant likewise filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence dated 27 February 2004. In an Order dated 08 March 2004, respondent Judge denied the two motions. As to the first motion, respondent Judge reasoned out that "movant Dodju Navaja Carang is not a party to the case since he has not intervened nor entered his appearance as a party to the case." As to the second motion, she held that "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."
Complainant claims that the denial of his motions constitutes gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence and grave abuse of authority. He argues that the motion for the release of the motor vehicle should not have been denied by the respondent Judge because the prosecution never contested nor opposed the ownership of his client. As to his motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he argues that it should have been granted by respondent Judge as the witness for the prosecution failed to identify or authenticate the jai alai tally sheets allegedly found in the possession of accused Wilfredo Carang at the time of his arrest on 26 September 2002, and to identify the accused in the course of the trial.
In her comment dated 20 January 2004, respondent Judge vehemently denied the allegations of the complainant. She claims that the complainant failed to adduce substantial evidence supporting his contention that the alleged registered owner of the vehicle, Dodju Carang, did not conspire with the alleged gambling activity of the accused Wilfredo Carang by allowing the use of his motorcycle. Respondent Judge further claims that complainant also failed to show to the court the original copy of the motorcycle registration at the Land Registration Office. Neither did Dodju Carang appear in court nor endeavor to prove his innocence.
Respondent Judge further belies complainant's claim that the prosecution's witness failed to identify or authenticate the jai alai tally sheets found in the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest on 26 September 2002 by presenting the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on 7 November 2003 showing that the prosecution's witness, PO3 Rolando Gantuangco, identified the subject tally sheets, thus:
PO1 Delos Reyes: During the last hearing Mr. Witness, you testified that you confiscated the evidence from the accused in this case. Can you tell this Court what was that evidence?
A:�������� Different number combination tally sheets.
Q:������� Here is an evidence marked as P.D. No. 1602 suspect W. Carang.
Will you please identify if this is the same evidence you confiscated from the accused?
A:�������� Yes sir.
PO1 Delos Reyes: There are twelve (12) tally sheets that was [sic] confiscated and one (1) key of motorcycle. Your Honor please, we request that this evidence be marked as Exhibit "B" for the prosecution. The tally sheets, Your Honor, be marked as Exhibits "B" to "B-11" and the motorcycle key be marked as Exhibit "C", Your Honor.
In his reply, complainant is questioning the authenticity of the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on 7 November 2003. He claims that he was present during the hearing on the said date and he cannot remember prosecution witness PO3 Rolando Gantuangco having identified the jai alai sheets.
In her letter of 20 April 2005 addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), respondent Judge moved for the dismissal of the complaint against her as the complaint contains falsities which are material to the case and for failure of the complainant to deny the counter-charges against him.
After study and evaluation, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the case for being judicial in nature. It stated that the issue of whether or not the denial of his motion for release of the motorcycle and demurrer to evidence are correctly rendered remains judicial in nature, which can be resolved through judicial adjudication.
We agree in the recommendation of the OCA.
Well-settled is the rule that unless the acts being complained of were consummated with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice, the respondent Judge may not be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or incompetence of official acts or acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases. Further, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous rule or decision he renders would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of the administration of justice can be infallible in his judgment. [1] cralaw
In the case at bar, complainant failed to adduce any evidence to prove bias for the prosecution and against the accused when respondent Judge ruled on the questioned motions. Neither was there proof presented by complainant that fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice attended the rendition of the assailed orders. There is, therefore, no basis for the charge of Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Incompetence and Grave Abuse of Discretion.
Finally, it is established that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal. [2] cralaw In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order as in the case at bar, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and corrections [3] cralaw and not with the OCA by means of an administrative complaint. [4] cralaw
The propriety of the denial of the motion for release of the motorcycle and demurrer to evidence by the respondent Judge calls for the exercise of judicial discretion.
Thus, the appropriate remedy of complainant remains judicial in nature.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Judge Grace Orma E. Ypil is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Severe A. Cordero v. Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, etc., A.M. No. CA-04-36, 18 February 2004, 423 SCRA 181.
[2] cralaw Ibid.
[3] cralaw Atty. Rex J.M.A. Fernandez v. Justice Eubolo Verzola, et al., A.M. No. CA-04-40, 13 August 2004, 436SCRA 369.
[4] cralaw Araos v. Luna-Pison, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1677, 28 February 2002, 378 SCRA 246.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
