Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-24-064)
Petitioner and Respondent
Complainant: Judge Leo L. Intia. Respondent: Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer (ret.). The complaint arose from tensions between judges and related incidents concerning conduct in court, an alleged insurance business, and alleged delay in resolving cases of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Letter‑complaint dated November 6, 2020; JIB/DCC reports in 2023–2024; Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) recommended a fine (P18,000) and re‑docketing; Supreme Court decision promulgated May 13, 2024. The 1987 Constitution and applicable Supreme Court circulars and internal judicial codes (New Code of Judicial Conduct; Administrative Circular No. 5, Oct. 4, 1988) govern the disposition.
Applicable Law and Standards
Governing legal norms invoked or applied include: 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VIII, Section 15[1]: 90‑day reglementary period), the New Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 6, Section 5), Administrative Circular No. 5 (1988) prohibiting judiciary personnel from being insurance agents, Section 37, Rule 128 of the 2019 Amended Rules on Evidence (hearsay), and Rules on Court discipline (Rule 140, A.M. No. 21‑08‑09‑SC: definitions of less serious charges and sanctions, including Sections 15, 17 and 22 concerning fines and payment/deduction).
Factual Allegations by Complainant
Judge Intia alleged (a) that Executive Judge Ferrer coaxed Atty. Botor to go against him; (b) that Ferrer engaged in and maintained an insurance business as an agent/broker in violation of Administrative Circular No. 5; and (c) that Ferrer violated Supreme Court circulars and duties in respect of cases involving PDLs by failing to decide or prioritize those matters. Judge Intia also included footnotes recounting alleged episodes of intemperate conduct and staff complaints.
Respondent’s Denials and Explanations
Executive Judge Ferrer denied instigating Atty. Botor, explained his role as Executive Judge in handling raffle committee matters and in referring allegations to the Office of the Chief Justice, admitted ownership of an insurance business inherited from his father but asserted he did not solicit clients nor manage day‑to‑day operations, and maintained that PDL cases were reported and handled in accordance with rules, with some resettings at parties’ instance. He also asserted that some allegations stemmed from animosity and third‑party hearsay.
Evidence Presented
Complainant submitted Judge Intia’s inhibition order with extensive footnotes, a leased commercial space contract and rent receipts alleged to support an insurance business, and an Updated List of PDLs from the provincial jail showing numerous long‑pending cases. Respondent submitted a verified comment, affidavit from Atty. Botor denying any instigation, branch clerk attestations, SALNs showing declaration of business interest, BIR forms with his signature, and pointed to an OCA judicial audit conducted in June 2022.
Preliminary Administrative Findings by the DCC (JIB Acting Executive Director)
DCC Navarrete recommended dismissal for lack of merit. He found complainant relied largely on secondhand information and failed to present credible evidence that Ferrer urged Atty. Botor to act. He concluded Ferrer’s insurance business did not demonstrably distract from judicial duties, that the business operated in Daet and not in Ferrer’s judicial station, and that clerk of court affidavits and the OCA judicial audit undermined claims of undue delay of PDL cases.
Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) Recommendation
The JIB accepted much of the DCC’s factual conclusions but recommended re‑docketing as a regular administrative matter and found Ferrer guilty of simple misconduct for violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Supreme Court rules/directives, principally focusing on ownership of an insurance business. The JIB considered the prohibition against insurance agency as absolute, reasoned that mere ownership without divestment warranted administrative sanction even absent solicitation or involvement in court transactions, and recommended a fine of P18,000 (less than the Rule 140 minimum associated with less serious charges).
Supreme Court’s Review Framework and Evidentiary Standards
The Court applied the substantial evidence standard for administrative cases (citing NBI v. Najera). It enforced evidentiary limits on hearsay under Section 37, Rule 128, and recognized prior final dispositions where applicable (res judicata/issue preclusion in administrative context) — specifically, that a prior dismissal and warning in OCA IPI No. 21‑5116‑RTJ concerning Valencia barred relitigation of the same alleged unbecoming conduct.
Court’s Findings on Unbecoming Conduct Allegations
The Court dismissed claims based on outbursts allegedly directed at Valencia, Barangay Captain Rodriguez, and PO1 Jacob. It noted Valencia’s separate complaint had been resolved (dismissed with warnings), that Judge Intia had no personal knowledge and relied on hearsay regarding the other two, and that the alleged behavior was adequately explained by Ferrer as appropriate court supervision to maintain decorum. Hearsay and absence of corroborating affidavits from the purported victims were fatal to those charges.
Court’s Findings on Alleged Instigation of Atty. Botor
The Court found no substantial evidence that Ferrer induced Atty. Botor to challenge Judge Intia. Atty. Botor’s affidavit denied any instigation, and the more plausible cause of friction was Ferrer’s October 29, 2020 memorandum urging raffle committee discretion in referring motions alleging corruption to the Office of the Chief Justice. The memorandum itself did not prove malignment or instigation.
Court’s Findings on Delay of PDL Cases
The Court held that a jail warden’s list alone did not establish undue delay. The OCA judicial audit conducted in June 2022, preparatory to Ferrer’s retirement, and the branch clerk’s attestations showing reportorial compliance and resettings by parties were more reliable. The Court reiterated that delay in resolving cases can lead to administrative liability but concluded that the complainant failed to demonstrate the requisite proof of undue delay by Ferr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-24-064)
The Case — Nature and Origin
- The matter arises from a Letter‑Complaint dated November 6, 2020, filed by Judge Leo L. Intia (Judge Intia), Presiding Judge, Branch 27, RTC, Naga City, against Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer (Executive Judge Ferrer (ret.)), then Executive Judge and Presiding Judge, Branch 20, RTC, Naga City.
- The complaint alleged: (a) that respondent coaxed Atty. Noe B. Botor to go against Judge Intia; (b) that respondent maintained and engaged in an insurance business as an insurance agent or broker in violation of prohibitory Supreme Court directives; and (c) that respondent violated Supreme Court circulars and rules regarding the disposition of cases involving persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).
- The Supreme Court rendered a Decision (Second Division, A.M. No. RTJ-24-064 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-021-RTJ], May 13, 2024), adopting the JIB’s findings in the main but imposing a different penalty.
Antecedents and Context Provided by Judge Intia
- Judge Intia inhibited himself from Criminal Case Nos. 2019‑0822 and 2019‑0823 ("People v. Inda") by Order dated October 19, 2020; the Order included extensive footnotes narrating alleged misconduct and intemperate behavior by the respondent toward various persons.
- Judge Intia narrated multiple instances allegedly showing respondent’s temperament and misconduct, including: shouting at a police witness and ordering him to sit on the judge’s chair; humiliating and insulting a barangay captain during a hearing; and a staff member (a "Lady staff") lodging a complaint to the Chief Justice after being lambasted during a staff meeting.
- Judge Intia recounted long‑standing animosity and alleged personal grievances between the parties, including prior friendship and family connections, rental arrangements for commercial space, and a prior suggestion to obtain car insurance from the respondent.
- Judge Intia identified by name those mentioned in his footnotes: the "Lady staff" as Rebecca Simando Valencia (Valencia), the barangay captain as Alfonso R. Rodriguez (Barangay Captain Rodriguez), the police officer as Police Officer I Joel Cenen Jacob (PO1 Jacob), and the prosecutor as Prosecutor Shiela Monserrate‑Manrique (Prosecutor Manrique).
- Judge Intia submitted as evidence of the respondent’s insurance business: (a) a lease contract between respondent and the owner of Angeles Building on Mercedes Road, Daet, Camarines Norte; and (b) receipts of monthly rent paid by respondent.
- Judge Intia also submitted an Updated List of PDLs dated November 6, 2020, from Police Colonel Romeo L. Pillonar, Officer‑in‑Charge and Provincial Jail Warden, showing at least 55 pending cases in respondent’s sala, 15 of which involved PDLs detained for more than three to more than eight years.
- Judge Intia contended that the delay in those PDL cases constituted blatant disregard of Supreme Court circulars and noted that those cases allegedly were not included in respondent’s monthly report and semestral docket inventory.
Respondent’s Verified Comment and Denials
- In a Verified Comment dated July 28, 2021, Executive Judge Ferrer (ret.) denied the allegations and traced the complaint’s origin to an incident involving Criminal Case Nos. 2019‑0822 and 2019‑0823, where Atty. Botor filed a motion for reconsideration and voluntary inhibition against Judge Intia.
- As a member (and later as Executive Judge) involved with the raffle committee, respondent and the raffle committee perused case records and observed serious allegations of corruption in Atty. Botor’s motion; respondent signed an order deferring raffling of those cases to contemplate whether the Office of the Chief Justice should be furnished a copy.
- Respondent issued Office Memorandum No. EVPF‑2020‑007 directing that Atty. Botor’s motion be furnished to the Office of the Chief Justice; respondent asserts that this administrative action gave rise to Judge Intia’s displeasure and subsequent complaint.
- Respondent denied instigating Atty. Botor to go against Judge Intia, asserting the dispute between Judge Intia and Atty. Botor dated back to 2006 and that Atty. Botor executed an affidavit denying any inducement by respondent.
- Respondent denied the three allegations of intemperate behavior (toward Valencia, Barangay Captain Rodriguez, and PO1 Jacob), explaining each instance: (a) Valencia was transferred after another complaint and was fined; Valencia filed a complaint against respondent for his call to order during a staff meeting, and that matter is pending under OCA IPI No. 21‑5116‑RTJ; (b) he called out Barangay Captain Rodriguez because the latter displayed disrespectful courtroom demeanor; and (c) he called the attention of PO1 Jacob for boisterous and disrespectful conduct during proceedings.
- Respondent admitted ownership of an insurance business registered in his name in Daet, Camarines Norte, inherited from his father and managed by Shirley Lo Aguilar (Aguilar); he averred he did not solicit clients or manage day‑to‑day transactions and that he consistently declared the business in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
- Respondent contended that Judge Intia’s retrieval of certain business documents was illegal and amounted to a violation of the Data Privacy Act.
Complainant’s Reply and Rejoinder Materials
- In a Reply dated September 22, 2021, Judge Intia reiterated his allegations and emphasized that Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Form No. 1601‑E (Monthly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld) for years 2012–2018 bore respondent’s signature as "Insurance Agent."
- A text message by Aguilar, sent to Judge Intia’s wife, is cited as confirming that respondent managed and directed insurance business transactions.
- Judge Intia denied respondent’s account that the complaint arose solely from the raffle committee incident and denied seeking respondent’s intervention in matters involving Atty. Botor.
- In a Rejoinder dated March 31, 2022, respondent reiterated prior explanations: the business interest was declared in SALNs, Aguilar managed operations, and Judge Intia illegally retrieved official receipts and withholding tax certificates without consent.
Proceedings before the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and Executive Director’s Report
- By Letter dated January 10, 2023, the Office of the Executive Director of the JIB directed respondent, though already retired, to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a member of the Philippine Bar.
- Respondent filed a Comment dated January 17, 2023, denying violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and reiterating earlier defenses.
- Deputy Clerk of Court at Large and Acting Executive Director of the JIB, James D.V. Navarrete (DCC Navarrete), issued a Report and Recommendation dated February 16, 2023, recommending dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
- DCC Navarrete found the complaint lacking credible evidence, concluded respondent did not violate Rules 5.02 and 5.03 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, and observed: (a) the insurance business was