CASE DIGEST
Office of the Court
Administrator v. Ferraris, Jr.
A.M. No. MTJ-21-001 (Resolution), [December 6,
2022]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Public's faith and
confidence in judicial system; Judiciary Personnel; Clerk of Court
The public's faith and confidence in the
judicial system depend, to a large extent, on the judicious and prompt
disposition of cases and other matters pending before the courts. The nature of
work of those connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, requires them to serve
with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility to maintain public
confidence in the judiciary.
Due to the compulsory retirement of
Judge Rufino S. Ferraris, Jr., the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
conducted a judicial audit of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Branch 7, Davao City. The audit revealed various delays and irregularities in
the court's operations, including delays in rendering judgments, resolving
pending motions, executing writs of execution, and handling criminal cases.
Judge Ferraris, Jr. was found to have committed irregularities by failing to
decide on civil cases within the prescribed period, neglecting motions in civil
and criminal cases, and not taking appropriate actions in several cases.
Furthermore, the MTCC, Branch 7, failed to address hundreds of criminal cases,
particularly those under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Additionally,
the court's oversight in checking the actual status of pending cases
contributed to further delays. As a result, both Judge Ferraris, Jr. and Ms.
Odruña, the Clerk of Court and former sheriff, were recommended to be held administratively
liable for their respective roles in the identified irregularities.
Whether or not Judge Ferraris, Jr. and
Odruña are administratively liable.
YES.
Both Judge Ferraris, Jr. and Odruña should be held administratively liable.
Judge Ferraris, Jr. is found guilty of various
administrative offenses, including two counts of gross neglect of duty, one
count of simple neglect of duty, and one count of violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives, and circulars. Gross neglect of duty refers to serious
negligence endangering public welfare, while simple neglect of duty signifies
failure to give proper attention to assigned tasks. The judge's delays in
resolving cases, motions, and pending incidents constitute gross neglect, while
failure to act in over 400 criminal cases and violations of court rules
represent serious breaches of duty. Mitigating factors such as Judge Ferraris,
Jr.'s advanced age and the economic impact of the pandemic are considered,
leading to the decision not to impose suspension from service, as he has
already retired.
Ms. Odruña is found to have committed both gross
negligence and simple neglect of duty in various aspects of her role as Clerk
of Court and former sheriff. Her gross negligence is evidenced by her failure
to timely release 274 orders in criminal cases and her inability to ensure that
court personnel under her supervision fulfill their duties regarding case
records management. Additionally, as a sheriff, she demonstrated gross neglect
by not promptly reporting to the court regarding unsatisfied writs of execution,
as required by law. Sixty-three (63) writs assigned to her remained
unimplemented or unserved for an extended period, with returns submitted years
later without adequate explanation for the delay. These actions collectively
demonstrate Ms. Odruña's failure to fulfill her duties effectively, resulting
in her administrative liability. The Court also finds Ms. Vivian N. Odruña
GUILTY of two (2) counts of the serious charge of gross neglect of duty; and
one (1) count of the less serious charge of simple neglect of duty.
No comments:
Post a Comment