Apr 14 min read

The SC fines a judge for failing to act in over four hundred (400) criminal cases.

Rule 3.07 and Rule 3.08 require a judge to

"maintain professional competence in court management" and "supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business." The New Code of Judicial Conduct reiterates the judges' obligations to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."

Compendious Bar Reviewer on Legal and Judicial Ethics (2024)

"Delay undermines the people's faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected. It also reinforces the litigants' impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.[36] Thus, a judge is administratively liable if he commits unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases.

In incurring delay in resolving a civil case covered by the Rules on Su1mnary Procedure, Judge Ferraris, Jr. committed simple neglect of duty. It took him an additional ten (10) days to decide the case, but he did not explain the delay.[38] This unexplained delay demonstrates indifference to observing the prescribed period to resolve cases.

Legal and Judicial Ethics Reviewer (2023) [Softcover] by Atty. Ed Vincent A. Albano III

In incurring delay in resolving motions and failure to take appropriate actions on pending incidents, Judge Ferraris, Jr. committed gross neglect of duty. The length of delay and frequency qualify the neglect of duty as gross. In six (6) criminal cases[39], Judge Ferraris, Jr. took eight (8) months to require the DENR-CENRO to file its comment on the motion to plea bargain. He also failed to take timely action in four (4) civil cases[40] pending for years. While Judge Ferraris, Jr. claimed that he took proper actions on the pending incidents, no proof was submitted to substantiate the court's action.[41]

In three (3) civil cases,[42] Judge Ferraris, Jr. did not submit proof that he resolved a pending motion in Civil Case No. 13,778-G-2003 and claimed that he did not act on two motions (Civil Case No. 21,451-G-09 and Civil Case No. 10,673-G-2001) for being erroneous.

"The Court cannot accept the explanation without proof. Also, Judge Ferraris, Jr. should still resolve or act on the motions even if he deemed them as erroneous."

Carillo (2023) - Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises - Bar Review Companion - Reviewer - by Edwin

The team initially found four hundred fifty-three (453) criminal cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure with no further action on the order to submit counter-affidavit x x x and seven (7) other criminal cases with no further setting/no further action x x x.

In imposing the penalty, Section 19 of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC provides that the Court may appreciate the mitigating circumstances of "humanitarian considerations" and "other analogous circumstances."

Here, the Court considers Judge Ferraris, Jr.'s advanced age after reaching compulsory retirement and the adverse economic effects of the Corona Virus Pandemic[49] as mitigating circumstances and valid considerations in imposing the penalties. Section 20 of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC also provides that if there is a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the Court "may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed" under the rule.

Bar Q & A: Legal Ethics (2024) [Softcover] by Atty. Ed Vincent Albano III

Considering that Judge Ferraris, Jr. has already retired, suspension from service can no longer be imposed. The minimum penalty of a fine of P100,001.00 for each count of a serious charge (gross neglect of duty) and a fine of P35,001.00 for each count of less serious charges (simple neglect of duty and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars that establish an internal policy, rule and procedure, or protocol) or a total of P270,004.00 may be imposed. Applying the mitigating circumstances, the Court deems it proper to impose the minimum imposable penalty or P135,002.00 or half of the prescribed penalty.

SC Launches Stylebook for Judicial Writing

FOR THESE REASONS, the Court finds former Judge Rufino S. Ferraris, Jr. GUILTY of two (2) counts of the serious charge of gross neglect of duty in the performance or nonperformance of official functions; one (1) count of the less serious charge of simple neglect of duty; and one (1) count of the less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, that establish an internal policy, rule of procedure, or protocol. The Court imposes upon him the penalty of fines amounting to P100,001.00 for each count of gross neglect of duty; P35,001.00 for simple neglect of duty; and P35,001.00 for failure to comply with relevant rules and circulars, establishing an internal policy or a total of P270,004.00. After considering the mitigating circumstances, the penalty of fine is reduced to P135,002.00.