Add a Comment
The OCA observed:
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.
The records do not bear the proof of mailing of the orders to submit counter-affidavit in one hundred fourteen (114) cases x x x giving the impression that the Orders were not released at all.
Judge Ferraris and Ms. Odruña belied the apparent failure to release the orders. They claim that the orders to submit counter-affidavit were actually mailed. They, however, failed to submit copies of the registry receipts/proof of mailing in each of the subject cases to support their explanation.
Anchored on the allegation that the orders were actually released/mailed to the accused on the dates, which, to reiterate were not verifiable from the case records nor proofs thereof submitted to this Office as part of their compliance, they countered that the court cannot further act on a number of cases because the registry receipts and/or registry return cards have not yet been submitted by the Philippine Postal Office, and the six (6)-month period from the time each of the orders was released has not lapsed x x x.
Even so, it is significant to note that there were hundreds of criminal cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure with no further action after the court issued the order to submit counter-affidavit because it did not follow-up with the Philippine Postal Office the latter's failure to immediately hand over/send (1) the proof of mailing by registered mail, and/or (2) the return of service that would indicate the date when the accused received the mail matter, if duly served, or the return envelope/mail matter itself in case the same was unserved.
Moreover, some orders issued more than a year ago proved to have been unacted upon as they were released only after the judicial audit was conducted. x x x
Worse, x x x it is clear that Branch 7 delayed the release/mailing of the said orders for at least a month to a maximum of one (1) year and eleven (11) months in two hundred seventy-four (274) cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure x x x.
x x x x
In addition, the court does not thoroughly check the actual status of the cases and the returns it received leading to the issuance of orders that do not correspond to the status of the case.
x x x x
In sum, the court failed to immediately take appropriate action on hundreds of criminal cases. Moreover, it would likewise appear that the court did not thoroughly check the status of the pending cases and the returns it received. Consequently, the action taken thereon did not correspond to the status thereof. Thus, either the proceedings of the case is further delayed, or the case, which could have already been disposed of, remains pending.[44]Judge Ferraris, Jr. is also administratively liable for violating the OCA Circular No. 11-2018, which requires the preparation and submission of monthly reports of cases. Here, the monthly report of cases had incomplete entries. The column representing the cases submitted for decision is consistently left blank. The required list of incoming and outgoing cases per month was also not attached. He also did not comply with Administrative Circular No. 76-2007, which requires submitting a semestral docket inventory report. The report omitted some entries in the column referring to the "last court action taken and date thereof" and the cases disposed of. Judge Ferraris, Jr. also failed to initial the last page of each of the records examined and did not conduct the actual physical inventory of each case. The joint certification is also defective because it only mentions civil cases. Judge Ferraris, Jr. did not deny these audit findings.[45] He also failed to comply with A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC[46], when he did not include the trial dates for the prosecution and defense in the pre-trial order. He did not deny his noncompliance to these circulars and rules. Under Section 15 (e),[47] a "violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars that establish an internal policy, rule or procedure, or protocol" is considered a less serious charge.[48]
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.
The records do not bear the proof of mailing of the orders to submit counter-affidavit in one hundred fourteen (114) cases x x x giving the impression that the Orders were not released at all.
Judge Ferraris and Ms. Odruña belied the apparent failure to release the orders. They claim that the orders to submit counter-affidavit were actually mailed. They, however, failed to submit copies of the registry receipts/proof of mailing in each of the subject cases to support their explanation.
Anchored on the allegation that the orders were actually released/mailed to the accused on the dates, which, to reiterate were not verifiable from the case records nor proofs thereof submitted to this Office as part of their compliance, they countered that the court cannot further act on a number of cases because the registry receipts and/or registry return cards have not yet been submitted by the Philippine Postal Office, and the six (6)-month period from the time each of the orders was released has not lapsed x x x.
Even so, it is significant to note that there were hundreds of criminal cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure with no further action after the court issued the order to submit counter-affidavit because it did not follow-up with the Philippine Postal Office the latter's failure to immediately hand over/send (1) the proof of mailing by registered mail, and/or (2) the return of service that would indicate the date when the accused received the mail matter, if duly served, or the return envelope/mail matter itself in case the same was unserved.
Moreover, some orders issued more than a year ago proved to have been unacted upon as they were released only after the judicial audit was conducted. x x x
Worse, x x x it is clear that Branch 7 delayed the release/mailing of the said orders for at least a month to a maximum of one (1) year and eleven (11) months in two hundred seventy-four (274) cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure x x x.
x x x x
In addition, the court does not thoroughly check the actual status of the cases and the returns it received leading to the issuance of orders that do not correspond to the status of the case.
x x x x
In sum, the court failed to immediately take appropriate action on hundreds of criminal cases. Moreover, it would likewise appear that the court did not thoroughly check the status of the pending cases and the returns it received. Consequently, the action taken thereon did not correspond to the status thereof. Thus, either the proceedings of the case is further delayed, or the case, which could have already been disposed of, remains pending.[44]Judge Ferraris, Jr. is also administratively liable for violating the OCA Circular No. 11-2018, which requires the preparation and submission of monthly reports of cases. Here, the monthly report of cases had incomplete entries. The column representing the cases submitted for decision is consistently left blank. The required list of incoming and outgoing cases per month was also not attached. He also did not comply with Administrative Circular No. 76-2007, which requires submitting a semestral docket inventory report. The report omitted some entries in the column referring to the "last court action taken and date thereof" and the cases disposed of. Judge Ferraris, Jr. also failed to initial the last page of each of the records examined and did not conduct the actual physical inventory of each case. The joint certification is also defective because it only mentions civil cases. Judge Ferraris, Jr. did not deny these audit findings.[45] He also failed to comply with A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC[46], when he did not include the trial dates for the prosecution and defense in the pre-trial order. He did not deny his noncompliance to these circulars and rules. Under Section 15 (e),[47] a "violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars that establish an internal policy, rule or procedure, or protocol" is considered a less serious charge.[48]
Paste your links or Text and Make Easy Money!
PastePeso is Pastebin Site. Earn Money Online By Pasting Links on our hassle free platform where multiple kinds of publishing could be easily created. So whether you have a Blog, website, Social Media stuffs just paste links to your content share the links and receive high payouts from Revenue Share Program.
Easy Payment Anytime
Your payment procedure is very simple and you don’t have to wait for long in order to get the payment. At any time of the day you can schedule a payout. We can pay you via GCash, PayMaya, CoinsPH, Paypal or Bank Transfer.
To share this paste please copy this url and send to your friends
This text must comply to our Terms and Conditions otherwise it will be removed from our Server.
Join Now!
You will earn Money from our Revenue Share Program!
It is Free and we don't ask any money from you! Join Now!
How to Earn? Click Here for more info
You want to know more? Visit our F.A.Q Click Here
You want Proof of Payments? Click Here