Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-24-064)
Background of the Complaint
On November 6, 2020, Judge Intia filed an administrative complaint against Executive Judge Ferrer alleging:
- He “coaxed” Atty. Botor into moving against Judge Intia;
- He maintained an insurance business in violation of Supreme Court circulars;
- He caused undue delay in cases of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) pending before his court.
Allegations of Intemperate Conduct
Judge Intia’s October 19, 2020 order inhibiting himself from two criminal cases contained footnotes recounting allegations that Ferrer had publicly humiliated a police witness, a barangay captain, and a court staffer (Valencia), citing episodes of shouting, insults, and intimidation.
Evidence of Insurance Business and PDL Delays
Judge Intia presented a lease contract and rent receipts to show Ferrer’s insurance agency in Daet, Camarines Norte. He also submitted a November 6, 2020 jail-warden list of 55 PDL cases—15 pending over three years—to prove Ferrer’s non-compliance with circulars requiring prioritization of PDL cases.
Respondent’s Verified Comment and Defenses
In July 2021 Ferrer denied each charge, explaining:
– He did not instigate Atty. Botor, who later executed an affidavit denying any persuasion.
– He called out Valencia, the barangay captain, and PO1 Jacob only for disrespectful courtroom behavior; no formal complaints were filed by those persons.
– His insurance agency pre-dated his judgeship, was managed by a subordinate, never solicited clients, and was declared in his SALNs.
– His branch clerk meticulously complied with monthly and semestral inventories; many PDL cases were active or already resolved.
Subsequent Pleadings and Privacy Objection
Judge Intia’s September 2021 Reply emphasized BIR returns signed by Ferrer as an insurance agent. Ferrer’s Rejoinder (March 2022) asserted improper release of his business records in violation of the Data Privacy Act, but maintained his business interest was transparent and passive.
Proceedings before the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB)
In January 2023 the JIB directed Ferrer to show cause. Ferrer again denied violations of Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Acting Executive Director Navarrete issued a Report (Feb. 16, 2023) recommending outright dismissal of all charges for lack of merit.
JIB’s Final Recommendation
By Report dated February 21, 2024, the JIB agreed that only the insurance-business charge warranted sanction. It characterized that violation of Administrative Circular No. 5 constituted simple misconduct, meriting a fine of ₱18,000, while dismissing other charges.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Conduct Charges
The Court adopted the JIB’s factual findings under the 1987 Constitution and New Code of Judicial Conduct. It ruled:
– The intemperate-conduct allegations (Valencia, barangay captain, PO1 Jacob) had been or should have been litigated in OCA IPI No. 21-5116-RTJ or were unsupported hearsay (2019 Amended Rules on Evidence, Rule 128, Sec. 37).
– These complaints were dismissed for lack of merit; no new findings could be made.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Influence Allegation
Under the substantial-evidence standard in administrative cases, the Court found no proof that Ferrer instigated Atty. Botor. Botor’s own affidavit denied any persuasion, and the motive lay in Ferrer’s fulfillment of his executive-judge duty to furnish the Chief Justice with a motion raising corruption allegations.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Delay in PDL Cases
The Court reiterated the mandatory 90-day period to resolve cases (Art. VIII, Sec. 15; Canon 6, Sec. 5, New Code of Judicial Conduct). It accepted the branch clerk’s affidavits and the OCA’s 2022 judicial aud
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-24-064)
Facts of the Case
- On November 6, 2020, Presiding Judge Leo L. Intia of RTC Branch 27, Naga City, filed a Letter-Complaint against Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer of RTC Branch 20, Naga City.
- The complaint alleged three principal charges against Judge Ferrer (ret.):
- Coaxing Atty. Noe B. Botor to file motions against Judge Intia.
- Maintaining and engaging in an insurance business as an insurance agent or broker.
- Violating Supreme Court circulars governing the prompt disposition of cases involving persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).
Antecedent Events
- In an October 19, 2020 Order, Judge Intia inhibited himself from two criminal cases (“People v. Inda”) and appended extensive footnotes recounting:
- Alleged “maligning” and instigation by Judge Ferrer to turn lawyers and litigants against Judge Intia.
- Incidents of public outbursts by Judge Ferrer toward:
- A police witness (PO1 Joel Cenen Jacob).
- A Barangay Captain (Alfonso R. Rodriguez).
- A lady prosecutor (Shiela Monserrate-Manrique) who was moved to tears.
- A staff interpreter (Rebecca Valencia) who later complained of humiliation.
- An ambush on a fellow lady judge and anxiety over possible threats to Judge Intia.
- Personal friendship ties and financial favors between the two judges, including rent discounts and an insurance-related concession.
Allegations and Proffered Evidence
- Judge Intia identified by name:
- Rebecca Valencia (court interpreter), Alfonso Rodriguez (Barangay Captain), PO1 Jacob, and Prosecutor Manrique.
- To prove the insurance business:
- A lease contract for “Angeles Building” in Daet, Camarines Norte.
- Monthly rent receipts signed by Judge Ferrer.
- To prove delays in PDL cases:
- A November 6, 2020 list of 55 pending PDL cases furnished by P/COL Romeo L. Pillonar.
- At least 15 detainees had been in custody between three and eight years.
- Allegation that these cases were omitted from monthly and semestral court inventories.
Respondent’s Verified Comment and Rejoinder
- Judge Ferrer (ret.) denied all charges in a Verified Comment (July 28, 2021) and Rejoinder (M