“x x x.
In the complainant’s
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 counsel’s 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 January
28, 2001 .
As
against respondent Myrla Nicandro, the complainant alleges that the former
subtracted certain amounts from the P10,000 deposited by defendant Butler
X x
x.
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 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.[1] The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary[2]
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 people’s 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.[3] 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.[4] 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 people’s 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 cautioned to
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.[5]
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.”[6] 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.”[7]
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.[8]
In
the case at bar, respondent Judge Asdala’s 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.[9] 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 Court’s approval of Amy Soneja’s 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.”[10] 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 judge’s 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.[11] In 1999, in Dumlao, Jr. v. Asdala,[12] respondent Judge Asdala was admonished for
partiality. A year later, in Bowman v. Asdala,[13]
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,[14]
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,[15]
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 national’s release from custody and asked for the amicable
settlement of the case against the latter.
Compounding her transgressions, respondent Judge Asdala likewise ordered
her court’s sheriff to engage the assistance of policemen in order to retrieve
the German national’s 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-
46950 & 14 Others,[16] this Court once again imposed a fine ofP11,000.00 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.”[17]
46950 & 14 Others,[16] this Court once again imposed a fine of
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
Soneja’s designation as OIC/Branch Clerk of Court. Respondent Nicandro’s 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
Nicandro’s 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.[18] 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.
X x x.”
See:
CARMEN P. EDAÑO vs.
JUDGE FATIMA
G. ASDALA,
RTC Br.
87, Quezon City
STENOGRAPHER
MYRLA DEL
PILAR
NICANDRO, RTC Br.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 Complainant,
(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2226-RTJ)
Promulgated:
July 26, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
[1] Investigation Report and
Recommendation, June 19,
2006 , p.10, citing Capuno v.
Jaramillo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-94-944.
[2] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, June 1, 2004 .
[3] Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, A.M. No. RTJ-98-420, October 8, 998 , 297 SCRA 376, 392; Yuson v. Noel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-762, October 1, 1993 , 227 SCRA
1, 7.
[4] Capuno v. Jaramillo, Jr., A.M. No.
RTJ-93-944, July 20,
1994 , 234 SCRA 212, 232.
[5] OCA Circular No. 70-2003, June 6, 2003 ; emphasis
supplied.
[6] Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
at Canon 4, Section 1.
[9] Rollo, p. 15.
[10] Rollo,
p. 178.
[11] Dumlao,
Jr. v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-99-00-1428 (February 8, 1999); Bowman v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1546 (March 6, 2000 ); Manansala III v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1916 (May 10, 2005 ); Request of Judge Fatima
Gonzales-Asdala, RTC-Branch 87, Quezon
City , for Extension of the Period to Decide Civil Case
No. Q-02-46950 & 14 Others, A.M. No.
05-10-618-RTC (July 11, 2006 ).
[12] A.M. No. RTJ-99-00-1428, (February 8, 1999).
[13] A.M. No. RTJ-00-1546 (March 6, 2000 ).
[14] A.M. No. RTJ-05-1916 (May 10, 2005 ).
[15] Section 11 of Rule 140 of the Rules
of Court.
[16] A.M. No. 05-10-618-RTC (July 11, 2006 ).
[17] Capuno, note at 13; Vistan v. Nicolas, A.M. No. MTJ-87-79
and A.C. No. 3040, September
13, 1991 .
