G.R. No. RTJ-24-064. May 13, 2024.
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.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Leo L. Intia filed a letter-complaint against respondent Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer (ret.) charging him with: (a) coaxing a lawyer, Atty. Noe B. Botor, to go against Judge Intia; (b) maintaining and engaging in an insurance business as an agent or broker; and (c) violating Supreme Court circulars relative to cases involving persons deprived of liberty (PDLs). The complaint stemmed from footnotes Judge Intia included in an October 19, 2020 Order where he inhibited himself from Criminal Case Nos. 2019-0822 and 2019-0823. The footnotes alleged that a fellow judge (identified as Executive Judge Ferrer) had been maligning him, instigating others against him, and had a history of improper conduct, including shouting at a policeman and humiliating a barangay captain in open court. Judge Intia also alleged that Executive Judge Ferrer engaged in an insurance business, evidenced by a lease contract and rental receipts for a commercial space, and that he failed to act on numerous pending cases of PDLs, violating relevant circulars. In his defense, Executive Judge Ferrer claimed the complaint was motivated by Judge Intia’s anger after he, as Executive Judge, deferred the raffle of the cases where Judge Intia inhibited himself and directed that a motion containing serious allegations against Judge Intia be furnished to the Office of the Chief Justice. He denied the allegations of misconduct and insurance business dealings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Executive Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer (ret.) is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

The Court found Executive Judge Ferrer administratively liable for engaging in an insurance business, which constitutes a violation of the rule against improper business activities under Section 8, Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The lease contract and receipts submitted, which he did not convincingly refute, established that he leased a commercial space for his insurance agency. This activity is prohibited for judges as it undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. The charge for violating circulars on PDL cases was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, as the mere listing of pending cases without proof of unreasonable delay or violation of specific circulars did not establish administrative liability. The charge of coaxing a lawyer against a fellow judge was also dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. Considering his retirement, the Court imposed a fine of P100,000.00, to be deducted from his salaries, benefits, and accrued leave credits. The other charges were dismissed for lack of merit.