Judge Ferraris, Jr.'s liability

Applying the new rules, Judge Ferraris, Jr. is guilty of two (2) counts of gross neglect of duty in the performance of official functions, one (1) count of simple neglect of duty, and one (1) count of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars that establish an internal policy, rule of procedure or protocol. As observed by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, it is imperative to examine Judge Ferraris, Jr.'s acts and omissions and determine whether he should be held guilty for multiple offenses following the higher level of decorum expected from the judges.

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.[31]

It also refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property."[32]

Simple neglect of duty means the "failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a 'disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."[33]

Consistent with the rule on multiple offenses, the Court would examine Judge Ferraris, Jr.'s acts and omissions based on the court processes involved and the corresponding delay, namely: (1) resolution of a case; (2) resolution of pending incidents or motions; and (3) other matters that need court action.

Notably, the litigants deserve their constitutional right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of their cases.[34] The corollary to this right is the duty mandated 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."[35]

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.[37]

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.

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.

In failing to act in over four hundred (400) criminal cases after directing the submission of counter-affidavits, Judge Ferraris, Jr. is again guilty of gross neglect of duty. These cases' sheer number and nature are sufficient to consider the neglect serious. The revised rules on summary procedure cover the majority of these criminal cases. The delay is contrary to the purpose of adopting rules on summary procedure to achieve expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases[43]. Judge Ferraris, Jr. did not proffer an adequate explanation.