Facts:

The case involves Judge Leo L. Intia, the Presiding Judge of Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court in Naga City, Camarines Sur, who filed a letter-complaint against Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer, the Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of Branch 20 of the same court. The complaint, dated November 6, 2020, accused Judge Ferrer of several misconducts, including instigating a lawyer, Atty. Noe B. Botor, to act against Judge Intia, engaging in an insurance business while serving as a judge, and violating Supreme Court circulars regarding cases involving persons deprived of liberty (PDLs). The background of the case reveals that Judge Intia had previously inhibited himself from handling Criminal Case Nos. 2019-0822 and 2019-0823, titled "People v. Inda," due to alleged maligning by Judge Ferrer. Judge Intia detailed various incidents where Judge Ferrer allegedly displayed unbecoming behavior in court, including shouting at a police witness and humiliating a ba...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint:
Judge Leo L. Intia filed a letter-complaint against Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer (ret.) based on three main allegations:

1. Coaxing a Lawyer to Act Against Judge Intia: Judge Intia accused Ferrer of persuading Atty. Noe B. Botor to file motions questioning Judge Intia’s integrity in ongoing cases.
2. Engaging in Prohibited Business Activities: Judge Intia alleged that Ferrer maintained and engaged in an insurance business, violating Supreme Court circulars prohibiting judges from such activities.
3. Violating Supreme Court Circulars on PDL Cases: Judge Intia claimed Ferrer failed to comply with directives to expedite cases involving persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).

Incidents of Alleged Misconduct:
Judge Intia’s complaint included various incidents of Ferrer’s alleged unbecoming conduct, such as shouting at a police officer, humiliating a barangay captain, and mistreating a court staff member. These incidents were reportedly relayed to Judge Intia by third parties.

Evidence Submitted:

1. Insurance Business: Judge Intia submitted lease contracts and receipts showing Ferrer’s involvement in an insurance business.
2. PDL Cases: A list of 55 pending PDL cases in Ferrer’s court was provided, with 15 cases delayed for 3 to 8 years.

Ferrer’s Defense:
Ferrer denied the allegations, stating that:

1. He did not instigate Atty. Botor against Judge Intia.
2. His insurance business, inherited from his father, was managed by Shirley Lo Aguilar, and he consistently declared it in his SALN.
3. He complied with Supreme Court circulars on PDL cases, and any delays were due to resettings at the instance of the parties.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Substantial Evidence Requirement: Administrative cases require substantial evidence. Mere allegations or hearsay are insufficient to prove misconduct.
2. Prohibition on Private Business: Under Administrative Circular No. 5, judges are prohibited from engaging in private businesses, including insurance, even if managed by others.
3. Judicial Ethics: Judges must maintain the dignity of the court and avoid any activity that undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
4. Timely Case Disposition: Judges must resolve cases within the reglementary period. However, delays caused by parties’ resettings do not constitute judicial inefficiency.

The Court emphasized that judges must divest themselves of financial interests in private businesses to avoid conflicts of interest and uphold judicial integrity.