Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Vs. Judge Rufino S. Ferraris, Jr.

A.M. No. MTJ-21-001 [FORMERLY A.M. No. 20-12-45-MTCC]. December 6, 2022

Topic: Citizenship

FACTS:
On account of the compulsory retirement of Judge Ferraris, Jr., judicial audit was
conducted by OCA of MTCC Br. 7 Davao, from which delays in the rendition of judgment,
resolution of pending incidents and motions, implementation of writs of execution, release of
orders, and implementation of writs of execution were found. The Judge and Clerk of Court
(Ms. Odruña) submitted comments and supporting documents substantiating their actions.

In its Memorandum, OCA recommended that Judge Ferraris, Jr. be held liable for
undue delay in rendering decisions or order for failure to decide within the prescribed period
under the Rules on Summary Procedure, delays in taking appropriate action/resolving
pending incidents and belatedly acting on hundreds of criminal cases. He is also liable for
violation of SC circulars. MTCC also took no further action in 460 criminal cases mostly
covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure which involved orders directing the accused to
file a counter-affidavit (no proof of mailing in some cases). OCA also found the judge’s
noncompliance with OCA Circular,Administrative Circular, and A.M. No. 03-l-09-SC (for
incorrect/absent entries like trial dates) requiring submission of docket inventory reports.

OCA recommended that Ms. Odruña be held administratively liable as Clerk of Court
for simple neglect of duty for failure to supervise the court personnel in the performance of
their respective duties and for lack of diligence in exercising her administrative functions.
She is guilty of gross negligence for failure to ensure that the orders in cases covered by the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure were timely released/mailed to the accused
concerned. As a former Sheriff, she is guilty of gross neglect and gross inefficiency for her
failure to either submit a return and/or periodic reports on the implementation of the writs/to
fully implement the writs assigned to her, both in violation of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Audit findings also identified incorrect practices as to case records management,

reportorial requirements, writs of execution, and incomplete details in orders (absence of
original signature and details of hearing dates).

ISSUE:
W/N the judge & clerk of court of MTCC Br. 7 Davao, are administratively liable - YES

RULING:
Court agrees with OCA findings but with modification as to penalties following the
amendments in Rule 140, which governs administrative disciplinary cases against judges.
Applying the new rules, Judge Ferraris, Jr. is guilty of 2 counts of gross neglect of duty in the
performance of official functions, 1 count of simple neglect of duty, and 1 count of violation of
SC rules that establish rule of procedure. Gross neglect is such neglect which, from the
gravity of the case or frequency of instances, becomes so serious in its character as to
endanger or threaten the public welfare. The length of delay and frequency qualify the
neglect of duty as gross. Simple neglect of duty means the "failure of an employee or official
to give proper attention to a task expected of him/her, signifying a disregard of a duty
resulting from carelessness or indifference." Pursuant to Rule on multiple offenses, Court
examined his acts/omissions based on the court processes involved and the corresponding
delay. The Court highlights the litigants’ constitutional right to a speedy trial and a speedy
disposition of their cases. Judges are duty-bound by Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct for judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the
required periods." 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." 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. Judge Ferraris, Jr. is also administratively liable for violating the OCA Circular No.
11-2018 for incomplete/incorrect entries in monthly reports of cases. He also failed to comply
with A.M. No. 03- 1-09-SC when he did not include the trial dates for the prosecution and
defense in the pre-trial order. However, the Court considered his advanced age and the
adverse economic effects of the Corona Virus Pandemic as mitigating circumstances.

As for Ms. Odruña’s capacity as Clerk of Court, the Court agrees that she committed
gross negligence when she failed to timely release 274 orders in criminal cases. These
cases cannot proceed because jurisdiction over the accused's person was not acquired.
This conduct shows her lack of respect for the litigants' right to speedy disposition of' cases
and contributes to the court dockets' unnecessary clogging and delay in the cases'
disposition. She is liable for simple neglect of duty for failure to ensure that the court
personnel under her supervision performed their duties relating to case records
management. In her capacity as former Sheriff, she demonstrated gross neglect of duty. The
sheriff is duty-bound to make periodic reports every 30 days until judgment is satisfied in full
(Sec. 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). A sheriff's failure to implement a writ of execution
has been characterized as gross neglect of duty. Moreover, the retroactive effect of the
amended Rule 140 considers her separate infractions as separate offenses (w/ separate
penalties) and not aggravating circumstances. Gross neglect of duty in the performance or
non performance of official functions is a serious charge, while simple neglect of duty is
classified as a less serious charge. The Court, however, considered her apologetic stance,
15 years of service, and adverse economic effects of the Pandemic, as mitigating
circumstances. The Court reiterates that the administration of justice is a sacred task and
requires the persons involved to live to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity, and
uprightness.