EN BANC

CARMEN P. EDAO, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 Complainant, (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 052226-RTJ)

Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
- versus - QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, CARPIO MORALES,
RTC Br. 87, Quezon City, and AZCUNA,
STENOGRAPHER MYRLA DEL TINGA,
PILAR NICANDRO, RTC Br. 217, CHICO-NAZARIO,
Quezon City, GARCIA,
Respondents. VELASCO, JR., and
NACHURA, JJ.
Promulgated:
July 26, 2007
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This administrative complaint was initiated by a handwritten complaint to the
Supreme Court, through Assistant Court Administrator Antonio H. Dujua
dated March 28, 2005, by the complainant Carmen P. Edao charging Judge Fatima
G. Asdala, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 87, of grave abuse
of discretion and authority, and of conduct unbecoming of a judge. A complaint
was also lodged against Myrla Nicandro, a stenographer detailed in the same RTC

branch, for usurpation of authority, grave misconduct and unauthorized

solicitations. Upon receipt of the complaint, we referred it to Court of Appeals
(CA) Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo for investigation in order to
ascertain the veracity of the complainants accusations and grievances.[1]
The complaint stemmed from a civil case for Support with a prayer for
Support Pendente Lite[2] filed by the complainant on behalf of her two minor
children, Carlo and Jay-ar, against George Butler, who denies paternity of the
children. Then pairing judge, Teodoro A. Bay, issued an Order dated November 12,
1999, directing defendant Butler to provide support pendente lite in the amount
of P5,000 per month to be delivered to the mother (the complainant herein) within
the first five (5) days of each month.[3] A writ of execution was subsequently issued
which included the garnishing of rental payments for the apartments in
Cubao, Quezon City, which are being managed by defendant Butler. It was at this
juncture that respondent Judge Asdala took cognizance of the case.
Due to the failure of defendant Butler to comply with the November 12, 1999
Order of the trial court, despite several reprimands and orders to implement,
complainant Edao moved to cite defendant Butler in contempt. On November 23,
2004, respondent Judge Asdala found defendant Butler guilty of indirect contempt
and sentenced him to four (4) months imprisonment and a P30,000.00
fine. Subsequently a Bench Warrant was issued against defendant Butler.[4]

On January 25, 2005, after privately meeting with defendant Butler in her
chambers, respondent Judge Asdala issued the following ex-parte Order:
Following his knowledge of Bench Warrant against him,
defendant George Butler, personally appeared before the Presiding Judge
and pleaded that the contempt fine imposed against him be reduced
to P5,000.00 and that the Bench Warrant be recalled.
The matter will be taken under advisement.
SO ORDERED.[5]

The following ex-parte Order was also issued by respondent Judge Asdala:

In the highest interest of justice, the October 7, 2004 and November 26,
2004[6] Order finding the defendant guilty of indirect contempt is hereby
reconsidered. As such, the fine is reduced toP5,000.00 and the
corresponding order of imprisonment is set aside.
SO ORDERED.[7]

On February 1, 2005, defendant Butler paid the P5,000.00 fine.[8] On March 22,
2005, respondent Judge Asdala dismissed complainant Edaos suit on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence.[9] The case is now pending before the CA after the
appellate court ordered the trial court to give due course to the complainants notice
of appeal.
In the complainants letter-complaint, she laments the fact that without notice, much
less consent, respondent Judge Asdala met privately with defendant Butler in her
chambers to discuss the finding of indirect contempt against the latter without any
hearing or minutes of the proceedings and without her or her counsels
participation. As a result of the said private meeting, the fine was reduced
from P30,000 to P5,000, the order of imprisonment was deleted, and the Bench
Warrant was recalled. The complainant likewise alleges that respondent Judge
Asdala forced her to file a complaint for neglect of duty against her own counsel,
Atty. Rowena Alejandria, with the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), as respondent
Judge Asdala had a grudge against Atty. Alejandria. She likewise claims that she
was given P1,000 by respondent Judge Asdala for her silence. The complainant
also faults respondent Judge Asdala for ordering the support pendente lite to be
deposited with the Office of the Clerk of Court instead of being directly given to
the complainant and for applying the money thus deposited to the payment of
the P5,000 fine instead of being given to the complainant. Further, she questions
the dismissal of the civil case for support on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence, alleging that the basis of the findings is the testimony of Butler which
was already stricken off the record as of January 28, 2001.
As against respondent Myrla Nicandro, the complainant alleges that the former
subtracted certain amounts from the P10,000 deposited by defendant Butlers
daughter, Cristy, before turning over the money to her. Allegedly, the amounts
subtracted were given to the respondents. The complainant likewise questions
respondent Nicandros discharge of the functions of Officer-in-Charge (OIC)/

Acting Branch Clerk of Court when the Supreme Court, through the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA), did not approve her designation as such.
In her defense, respondent Judge Asdala avers that the recall of the bench warrant
and the reduction of the fine are matters of judicial discretion. She insists that, after
the representation of Mr. Butler of his financial inability to pay the original fine,
the amendment to her previous orders was more in keeping with justice and
fairness. Respondent Judge Asdala likewise denies the charges that she instigated a
complaint against Atty. Alejandria. She points to the fact that the complainant
herself wrote a letter of apology dated November 19, 2004 to Atty. Alejandria
withdrawing her complaint and retracting the statements made therein. As for the
designation of respondent Nicandro as OIC for administrative services in Branch
87, respondent Judge Asdala avers that the same was with the knowledge of the
Executive Judge of Quezon City; and that as presiding judge of Branch 87, she has
the discretion and the authority to appoint whoever has her trust and
confidence. With regard to the decision to dismiss the civil case for support,
respondent Judge Asdala maintains that the proper remedy is to elevate the matter
to the appellate court and not to file an administrative case against her.
Respondent Nicandro, for her part, denies misrepresenting herself as OIC. She
avers that she was acting under the designation made by respondent Judge Asdala,
with the knowledge of the Executive Judge. As for the other accusations made by
the complainant, respondent Nicandro insists that the same are blatant lies. She
denies soliciting money from the complainant, and avers that it was in fact the
complainant who would frequently go to Branch 87 and borrow money from the
court personnel who, out of pity, would oblige to lend her small amounts from time
to time. She maintains that at the time the complainant claimed the P10,000
deposited by Butler, respondent Nicandro reminded her of her debts to a number of
court personnel P400 to process server Lito de la Cruz, P100 to Sheriff Victor
Yaneza, and P100 to court stenographer Elenita Ribaya. Respondent Nicandro
allegedly reminded the complainant that she owed respondent Judge Asdala P500
which the latter gave as payment for Sheriffs fee. The payment, however, was no
longer accepted by the respondent judge who, instead, directed respondent
Nicandro to use the same to buy snacks for the court staff. The same was
corroborated by respondent Judge Asdala.

As stated in the Investigation Report and Recommendation of the Investigating

Justice, the act of a judge done within his judicial discretion, such as the reduction
of fine for indirect contempt, should not be subject to disciplinary action. In the
instant complaint, however, the exercise of discretion by the respondent is not
impugned. Rather, it is the conduct of respondent Judge Asdala in meeting with
defendant Butler without notice or knowledge, much less the presence, of the
complainant or her representative that is assailed. The meeting was not an
innocuous one for it resulted in the cancellation of the bench warrant, the
revocation of the order of imprisonment and the significant reduction in the
amount of fine from P30,000.00 to P5,000.00. Respondent Judge Asdala does not
deny the private meeting, much less explain its circumstances. As rightly observed
by the Investigating Justice, the private meeting was improper, to say the least. It
deprived the complainant of her right to be heard on matters affecting her vital
interests. The secret meeting cannot but invite suspicion, for no minutes or
stenographic notes of the meeting have been presented, if any existed. Respondent
judge cannot feign ignorance of the fact that our courts are courts of record.
As the visible representation of the law and justice, judges, such as the respondent,
are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that would enhance the respect and
confidence of the people in the judicial system.[10] The New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary[11] mandates that judges must not only
maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality; but they must also avoid
any appearance of impropriety or partiality, which may erode the peoples faith in
the judiciary. Integrity and impartiality, as well as the appearance thereof, are
deemed essential not just in the proper discharge of judicial office, but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.[12] This standard applies not only to the decision
itself, but also to the process by which the decision is made. Section 1, Canon 2,
specifically mandates judges to ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of reasonable
observers. Clearly, it is of vital importance not only that independence, integrity
and impartiality have been observed by judges and reflected in their decisions, but
that these must also appear to have been so observed in the eyes of the people, so
as to avoid any erosion of faith in the justice system. [13] Thus, judges must be
circumspect in their actions in order to avoid doubt and suspicion in the
dispensation of justice. To further emphasize its importance, Section 2, Canon 2
states:

Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the

peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.

As early as June 6, 2003, OCA Circular No. 70-2003 has directed judges as
follows:
In view of the increasing number of reports reaching the Office of the
Court Administrator that judges have been meeting with party litigants
inside their chambers, judges are hereby cautionedto avoid in-chambers
sessions without the other party and his counsel present, and to
observe prudence at all times in their conduct to the end that they
only act impartially and with propriety but are also perceived to be
impartial and proper.[14]
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not
only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
[15]
As such, judges must ensure that their conduct, both in and out of the court,
maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and
litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.[16] In the same vein, the
Code of Judicial Conduct behooves all judges to avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all their activities, as such is essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge in order to maintain the trust and respect
of the people in the judiciary.[17]
In the case at bar, respondent Judge Asdalas actions as above discussed put into
question the impartiality, independence, and integrity of the process by which the
questioned amended orders were reached. Her actions miserably fell short in the
discharge of her duty as an officer of the court and as a living embodiment of law
and justice.
Further, respondent Judge Asdala, in insisting on the designation of respondent
Nicandro as OIC, blithely and willfully disregarded the Memorandum of this
Court, through the OCA, which approved the designation of Amy Soneja alone -and not in conjunction with respondent Nicandro -- as OIC. [18] While the presiding
judge, such as respondent Judge Asdala, can recommend and endorse persons to a
particular position, this recommendation has to be approved by this Court. Again,

the respondent judge ought to know that the Constitution grants this Court
administrative supervision over all the courts and personnel thereof. In the case at
bar, despite the Courts approval of Amy Sonejas designation, the respondent judge
allowed, if not insisted on, the continued discharge of the duties of OIC by
respondent Nicandro. Respondent Judge Asdala even had the gall to insist that as
presiding judge she has the authority and discretion to designate anyone who
works under her, as long as that person enjoys her trust and confidence. [19] Coming
from a judge, such arrogance, if not ignorance, is inexcusable. The memorandum
from the OCA regarding the designation of court personnel is no less an order from
this Court.Court officials and personnel, particularly judges, are expected to
comply with the same. Respondent judges gross insubordination cannot be
countenanced.
This is not the first time that respondent Judge Asdala has been disciplined and
penalized by this Court. She has been found guilty of various administrative
complaints in at least four (4) other occasions. [20] In 1999, in Dumlao, Jr. v.
Asdala,[21] respondent Judge Asdala was admonished for partiality. A year later,
in Bowman v. Asdala,[22] she was fined P2,000.00 for grave abuse of discretion in
nine (9) cases when she deliberately withheld and did not attach a copy of her
order of inhibition which resulted in the non-transmittal of the records of the
criminal cases. In 2005, in Manansala III v. Asdala,[23] she was likewise ordered
to pay a fine of P40,000.00, the highest fine that may be imposed for serious
offenses committed by judges and justices, [24] for gross misconduct after she
interfered with a case of a German national who was then detained at the police
station awaiting inquest investigation. In the said case, respondent Judge Asdala
requested the German nationals release from custody and asked for the amicable
settlement of the case against the latter. Compounding her transgressions,
respondent Judge Asdala likewise ordered her courts sheriff to engage the
assistance of policemen in order to retrieve the German nationals car so that it may
be turned over to her custody. Just last year, in 2006, in Request of Judge Fatima
Gonzales-Asdala, RTC-Branch 87, Quezon City, for Extension of the Period to
Decide
Civil
Case
No. Q-02[25]
46950 & 14 Others, this Court once again imposed a fine of P11,000.00 on
respondent judge for her repeated and unjustifiable failure to render decisions
within the prescribed period. Each penalty imposed on her in the said cases came
with a stern warning that the subsequent commission of the same or similar offense

shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent Judge Asdala has time and time
again blatantly disregarded this stream of warnings. Such repeated infractions and
heedless transgressions can no longer be countenanced by this Court. As we have
repeatedly stressed, there is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the
exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.[26]
Be that as it may, the accusation that respondent Judge Asdala instigated the
complainant to file a complaint against Atty. Alejandria must be dismissed for lack
of sufficient evidence. Similarly, we agree with the Investigating Justice that the
dismissal of the civil case for support cannot be a ground for administrative
complaint as the matter is on appeal with the CA and appeal is the appropriate
remedy of the aggrieved party.
Respondent Nicandro, on her part, has been accused of usurping the functions of
OIC. While she acted on the strength of the memorandum of respondent Judge
Asdala designating her as such, it is undeniable that she is aware of the
memorandum of this Court, through the OCA, approving Amy Sonejas designation
as OIC/Branch Clerk of Court. Respondent Nicandros continued exercise of the
functions of OIC after the disapproval of her designation is a clear defiance of the
instruction of this Court.
As to the charge of unauthorized solicitation, it is clear that respondent Nicandro,
at
the
very
least,
acted
as
collection
agent
of
the
office staff with regard to the alleged amounts owed by complainant. Such action
on the part of respondent Nicandro lacks the propriety and proper decorum
expected of a court personnel. This is not the first time that this Court had censured
respondent Nicandros behavior in dealing with party litigants. Early this year,
on February 12, 2007, she was fined for gross insubordination for her willful
failure and indifference to the orders of this Court despite having been found in
contempt for her refusal to comply with the said orders. She was also reprimanded
for willful failure to pay a just debt despite repeated demands from the complainant
therein.[27] Such infractions are conduct highly prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.
This Court has repeatedly stressed its unbending policy not to tolerate or
condone any act or omission that falls short of the exacting norms of public office,
especially on those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary. Again, this

Court will not shirk from its responsibility of weeding out those who stain the
integrity and dignity of the judiciary.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala is found GUILTY of gross
insubordination and gross misconduct unbefitting a member of the judiciary and is
accordingly DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits
and leave credits to which she may be entitled.
2. Respondent Myrla Nicandro is found GUILTY of insubordination in
assuming the position and discharging the functions of OIC/ Branch Clerk of Court
without and in defiance of proper authority and is accordingly SUSPENDED from
the service for a period of sixty (60) days, without pay, commencing on the day
immediately following her receipt of a copy of this Decision, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. The period
of suspension shall not be chargeable against her leave credits. Respondent
Nicandro is likewise ordered to immediately cease and desist from discharging the
functions of OIC/Branch Clerk of Court and from representing herself as such.
Respondent Nicandro is likewise REPRIMANDED for conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service and ordered to abstain from transacting with party
litigants other than for official purposes.
SO ORDERED.