A.M. No. RTJ-24-064 – HONORABLE LEO L. INTIA, Presiding Judge, Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, Camarines Sur, complainant, vs. HONORABLE ERWIN VIRGILIO P. FERRER, Executive Judge and Presiding Judge, Branch 20, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, Camarines Sur, respondent.

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence required is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden to establish the charges rests upon the complainant. Furthermore, alleged administrative violations must be clearly shown. The burden of proof lies on the complainant.

In determining the imposable penalty for administrative violations, mitigating factors may be considered.

Facts

In a Letter-Complaint dated November 6, 2020, Judge Leo L. Intia (Judge Intia), charged Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer (Judge Ferrer) of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naga City with: (a) coaxing Atty. Noe B. Botor (Atty. Botor), a practicing lawyer, to go against him; (b) maintaining and engaging an insurance business as an insurance agent or broker; and (c) violating Supreme Court circulars relative to cases involving persons deprived of liberty (PDLs). Various other allegations are also found in the footnote of Judge Intia’s Order inhibiting himself from handling Criminal Case Nos. 2019-0822 and 2019-0823. Among these allegations against Judge Ferrer are: (a) unbecoming conduct for his supposed outbursts against court personnel Valencia during a staff meeting; and (b) maltreatment against Barangay Captain Rodriguez and PO1 Jacob.

Judge Intia alleged/submitted the following pieces of evidence:

On the unbecoming conduct for his supposed outbursts against court personnel Valencia. Judge Intia related in the abovestated footnote that “a Lady staff of the Judge complained to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court against this Judge who lambasted, shouted, insulted and humiliated her during a staff meeting.”

On the alleged maltreatment against Barangay Captain Rodriguez and PO1 Jacob. Judge Intia related in the abovestated footnote that “[h]e shouted and lambasted a policeman witness in open court and ordered him to sit on the Judge chair while having trial, the Lady Prosecutor was already in tears when the fury of the judge subsided,” and “[i]n a loud and offensive voice, he humiliated and insulted a Barangay Captain during a hearing.”

On the alleged instigation of Atty. Botor against Judge Intia. Judge Ferrer denied the same, and Atty. Botor executed an affidavit stating that he was never instigated to go against Judge Intia.

On the cases involving PDLs. Judge Intia submitted an Updated List of PDL’s dated November 6, 2020 showing that at least 55 cases were pending in the sala of Judge Ferrer issued by the provincial jail warden. 15 of the PDL’s had been in jail for more than 3 years to more than 8 years. Judge Intia alleged that the delay in the resolution of these cases was a blatant disregard of existing Supreme Court circulars.

On Judge Ferrer’s insurance business. Judge Intia submitted the following: (a) lease contract between Judge Ferrer and the owner of Angeles Building in Camarines Norte; and (b) receipts of the monthly rent paid by Judge Ferrer.

The the Acting Executive Director, Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) recommended the dismissal of the Complaint. Meanwhile, the JIB recommended that Judge Ferrer be found guilty of simple misconduct for violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Issues

May Judge Ferrer be found guilty of unbecoming conduct for his supposed outbursts against court personnel Valencia during a staff meeting?
May Judge Ferrer be found guilty of maltreatment against Barangay Captain Rodriguez and PO1 Jacob?
May Judge Ferrer be found guilty of influencing Atty. Botor to go against Judge Intia?
May Judge Ferrer be found guilty of delaying the disposition of cases involving PDLs?
Is Judge Ferrer administratively liable for not divesting his interest in his insurance business?

Ruling and Discussion

No. Judge Ferrer may not be found guilty of unbecoming conduct for his supposed outbursts against court personnel Valencia during a staff meeting.

Valencia’s complaint against Judge Ferrer was the subject matter of OCA IPI No. 21-5116-RTJ titled “Valencia v. Ferrer,” which the Court dismissed stern warning to both parties in a Resolution dated January 30, 2023. The Court cannot pass upon for the second time Judge Intia’s same charge of unbecoming conduct by Judge Ferrer.
No. Judge Ferrer may not be found guilty of maltreatment against Barangay Captain Rodriguez and PO1 Jacob. The charge is unsubstantiated.

Hearsay evidence is inadmissible under Section 37, Rule 128 of the 2019 Amended Rules on Evidence.

Judge Intia himself admitted that the information on the supposed maltreatment was only relayed to him and he had no personal knowledge thereof. The two alleged victims did not execute any supporting affidavits nor initiate any administrative complaint against Judge Ferrer.
No. Judge Ferrer may not be found guilty of influencing Atty. Botor to go against Judge Intia as there is no evidence to prove the same.

In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence required is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden to establish the charges rests upon the complainant.

Here, Judge Intia merely alleged that Judge Ferrer egged Atty. Botor to accuse him (Judge Intia) of corruption. Mere allegations are not evidence. Further, Atty. Botor executed an affidavit categorically denying that he ever accused Judge Intia of corruption.
No. Judge Ferrer may not be found guilty of delaying the disposition of cases involving PDLs.

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution requires lower court judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of 90 days. Section 5 of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct likewise directs judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of resolution and decisions efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. However, to find a Judge guilty of such undue delay, the same must be clearly shown.

Here, Judge Intia merely relied on a list of pending cases provided by a jail warden. Such list alone will not suffice. It should be concretely shown that Judge Ferrer did not dispose of the cases within the prescribed period. Merely indicating that a certain case has been pending for so many years does not automatically amount to undue delay.
Yes. Judge Ferrer administratively liable for not divesting his interest in his insurance business.

Administrative Circular No. 5 (Prohibition to Work as Insurance Agent) enjoins Judicial employees from being commissioned as insurance agents or engaging in similar activities.

Here, Judge Ferrer owns financial interest in the insurance business through EVPF Insurance Agency in violation of Administrative Circular No. 5.

Given the circumstances in the instant case, it cannot be said that Judge Ferrer intended to circumvent Administrative Circular No. 5. Thus, the Court imposes on him the minimum fine of PHP35,000.00 which shall be charged to his retirement benefits, in view of his retirement.

The Court considered the following factors in determining the imposable penalty: (a) Judge Ferrer inherited the business from his father; (b) be never used his position to solicit business for his company; (c) the business was situated in Daet, Camarines Norte, well outside the territorial jurisdiction of his court; (d) the relevant lease contracts and public documents, such as BIR forms transparently bore his name and signature as business owner/insurance agent; (e) he consistently declared his business interest in his SALN; and (f) he was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business. Clearly, Judge Ferrer never hid that he owns an insurance business. His only fault was that upon his appointment as judge, he did not divest his financial interest therein.

dispositive

Judge Ferrer found liable for for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5. Other charges dismissed.