Case Summary (G.R. No. 14639)
Factual Background
Judge Intia, by an Order dated October 19, 2020, inhibited himself from handling Criminal Case Nos. 2019-0822 and 2019-0823 and appended extensive footnotes accusing another judge of maligning him, of intimidating witnesses and court personnel, and of engaging in an insurance business. He identified the judge referred to in those footnotes as Executive Judge Ferrer and named several persons allegedly involved: Ms. Rebecca Simando Valencia, a court interpreter; Barangay Captain Alfonso R. Rodriguez; Police Officer I Joel Cenen Jacob; and Prosecutor Shiela Monserrate-Manrique. Judge Intia also produced a list of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) showing numerous pending cases in Branch 20 and submitted lease contracts and receipts as evidence of an insurance business.
Complaint and Allegations
In his Letter-Complaint dated November 6, 2020, Judge Intia charged Executive Judge Ferrer with three principal allegations: (a) coaxing Atty. Noe B. Botor to go against Judge Intia and to file allegations of corruption; (b) maintaining and engaging in an insurance business as an insurance agent or broker in violation of judicial rules; and (c) violating Supreme Court circulars and directives concerning the prompt disposition of cases involving PDLs.
Respondent’s Answer and Defenses
In his Verified Comment and subsequent pleadings, Executive Judge Ferrer denied the material allegations. He explained that his involvement with Criminal Case Nos. 2019-0822 and 2019-0823 arose from his role as a member of the raffle committee and from an Office Memorandum he issued in his capacity as Executive Judge regarding furnishing the Office of the Chief Justice copies of motions for voluntary inhibition that contained serious allegations. He admitted ownership of an insurance business inherited from his father but asserted that he neither solicited clients nor managed day-to-day operations, that the business was located in Daet, Camarines Norte, and that he consistently declared the interest in his SALN. He also denied directing Atty. Botor to file any motion and submitted, among other things, an affidavit by Atty. Botor denying any instigation by him.
Proceedings Before the Judicial Integrity Board
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and its Acting Executive Director directed Executive Judge Ferrer to show cause and considered his comments. The Office of the Court Administrator conducted a judicial audit preparatory to respondent’s compulsory retirement and reviewed the records, including attestations by the branch clerk of court regarding monthly reports and semestral docket inventories for cases assigned to Branch 20.
Report of the Acting Executive Director, Judicial Integrity Board
Deputy Clerk of Court at Large James D.V. Navarrete recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. He found that Judge Intia relied on incidents of which he had no personal knowledge and failed to adduce credible evidence that Executive Judge Ferrer instigated Atty. Botor. DCC Navarrete likewise found no proof that the insurance business distracted respondent from judicial duties or that it operated within respondent’s judicial region, and he found insufficient basis to conclude that respondent omitted required reports on PDL cases. The Acting Executive Director accordingly recommended dismissal.
Report and Recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board
The JIB, by its Report dated February 21, 2024, reached different conclusions in part. The JIB recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case and found Executive Judge Ferrer guilty of simple misconduct for violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct insofar as he directly engaged in an insurance business, holding that Administrative Circular No. 5 enjoins judicial employees from being commissioned as insurance agents and that the prohibition is absolute. The JIB recommended a fine of PHP 18,000.00 and dismissed the other charges for lack of merit, noting that the OCA audit validated the branch clerk of court’s attestations and that there was no proof of solicitation or transactions with court clients.
Issues Presented
The principal issues distilled by the Court were whether there was substantial evidence that Executive Judge Ferrer (a) engaged in unbecoming conduct in the alleged outbursts against court personnel and third parties; (b) induced Atty. Botor to file accusations against Judge Intia; (c) unduly delayed resolution of cases involving PDLs; and (d) violated Administrative Circular No. 5 by retaining a financial interest in an insurance business while serving as a judge.
Standard of Proof and Applicable Law
The Court reiterated that administrative guilt requires proof by substantial evidence. It applied Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1), 1987 Constitution as to the 90-day reglementary period for decision, the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Administrative Circular No. 5, and procedural provisions of Rule 140, A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC (Sections 15, 17, and 22) to determine class of offense and range of penalties. The Court also invoked Section 37, Rule 128 (hearsay) to assess the probative value of secondhand allegations relayed to Judge Intia.
The Court’s Findings on Unbecoming Conduct Allegations
The Court found no basis to disturb the prior disposition of the complaint by the Office of the Court Administrator in OCA IPI No. 21-5116-RTJ concerning the complaint of Ms. Valencia, and the Court held that Judge Intia could not relitigate the same matters in this administrative proceeding. The Court further found the allegations of maltreatment of Barangay Captain Rodriguez and PO1 Jacob unsupported because Judge Intia admitted lack of personal knowledge and relied on hearsay. The Court emphasized that judges have authority to call unruly persons to order, and that absent direct testimony or affidavits by the purported victims, those charges must be dismissed.
The Court’s Findings on Influence over Atty. Botor
The Court held that there was no substantial evidence that Executive Judge Ferrer instigated Atty. Botor to file a motion against Judge Intia. The Court accepted Atty. Botor’s affidavit denying any instigation and found it more probable that the animosity stemmed from respondent’s exercise of administrative discretion and his memorandum as Executive Judge. The Court reiterated that mere allegations without corroborative proof do not meet the requisite standard in administrative proceedings.
The Court’s Findings on Delay in Cases Involving PDLs
The Court recognized the mandatory nature of the 90-day rule under Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1), 1987 Constitution and relevant provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, but it found insufficient proof of unreasonable delay by Executive Judge Ferrer. The Court accepted the branch clerk of court’s attestations and the OCA judicial audit conducted prior to respondent’s retirement as a more reliable gauge than a jail warden’s list. The Court concluded that the list of pending PDL cases alone did not establish undue delay and dismissed the charge for lack of merit.
The Court’s Findings on Insurance Business and Administrative Circular No. 5
The Court found that Executive Judge Ferrer owned a financial interest in an insurance business styled EVPF Insurance Agency, that his name and signature appeared on public documents and BIR returns, and that he consistently disclosed the interest in his SALN. The Court concluded that ownership of the insurance business violated Administrative Circular No. 5, which u
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 14639)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Honorable Leo L. Intia filed a letter-complaint dated November 6, 2020 against Honorable Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer (ret.) alleging multiple administrative violations.
- The complaint was processed before the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and the Office of the Court Administrator which produced investigative reports and recommendations.
- The JIB recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case and found respondent guilty of simple misconduct but with a recommended fine of PHP 18,000.00.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the JIB reports and rendered the present Decision adopting the JIB’s findings in the main but modifying the penalty.
Key Factual Allegations
- Judge Intia alleged that respondent coaxed Atty. Noe B. Botor to file allegations against him and thus instigated a motion for inhibition.
- Judge Intia alleged that respondent maintained and engaged in an insurance business as an insurance agent or broker in violation of court circulars.
- Judge Intia alleged that respondent violated Supreme Court circulars and delays in cases involving persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) by failing to prioritize and timely decide such cases.
- Judge Intia alleged several instances of intemperate conduct by respondent toward court personnel, a barangay captain, and a police officer as recounted in the footnotes of an October 19, 2020 inhibition order.
Procedural History
- The raffle committee, of which respondent was a member as Executive Judge, reviewed Criminal Case Nos. 2019-0822 and 2019-0823 and noted serious allegations prompting consideration whether to furnish the Office of the Chief Justice with relevant motions.
- Respondent issued Office Memorandum No. EVPF-2020-007 directing that a motion containing serious corruption allegations be furnished to the Office of the Chief Justice.
- The city prosecutor dismissed a libel complaint filed by Judge Intia against respondent, and Judge Intia’s own motion for reconsideration and inhibition was denied on April 21, 2021.
- The JIB and the Acting Executive Director submitted investigative reports recommending dismissal and, alternatively, administrative sanction for ownership of an insurance business; the JIB recommended guilt with a smaller fine.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent committed unbecoming conduct and maltreatment in the incidents involving court personnel, a barangay captain, and a police officer.
- Whether respondent improperly instigated Atty. Botor to file allegations against Judge Intia.
- Whether respondent violated Supreme Court circulars and the duty to decide cases involving PDLs within the prescribed period.
- Whether respondent violated Administrative Circular No. 5 by owning or engaging in an insurance business while serving as a judge.
Parties' Contentions
- Judge Intia maintained that respondent maligned him, instigated third parties, owned and operated an insurance business, and failed to comply with circulars regarding PDL cases.
- Respondent Ferrer (ret.) contended that he acted within his administrative capacity as Executive Judge, that Atty. Botor denied any instigation by him, that the insurance business was inherited and managed by a third person, and that the PDL cases were properly reported and not unduly delayed.
- Respondent further contended that documents allegedly retrieved by Judge Intia were obtained without consent and implicated data privacy issues.
Findings of Fact
- The Court accepted the JIB’s factual findings that Atty. Botor executed an affidavit denying any instigation by respondent to go against Judge Intia.
- The Court found that the complaints regarding