ENBANC

CARMENP.EDAO,A.M.No.RTJ061974Complainant,(formerlyOCAI.P.I.No.052226RTJ)

Present:

PUNO,C.J.,
versusQUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA,
JUDGEFATIMAG.ASDALA,CARPIOMORALES,
RTCBr.87,QuezonCity,andAZCUNA,
STENOGRAPHERMYRLADELTINGA,
PILARNICANDRO,RTCBr.217,CHICONAZARIO,
QuezonCity,GARCIA,
Respondents.VELASCO,JR.,and
NACHURA,JJ.

Promulgated:

July26,2007
xx
DECISION

PERCURIAM:

This administrative complaint was initiated by a handwritten complaint to the Supreme Court, through
AssistantCourtAdministratorAntonioH.Dujuadated March28,2005, by the complainant Carmen P. Edao
chargingJudgeFatimaG.Asdala,RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of QuezonCity,Branch87,ofgraveabuseof
discretion and authority, and of conduct unbecoming of a judge.A complaint was also lodged against Myrla
Nicandro,astenographerdetailedinthesameRTCbranch,forusurpationofauthority,gravemisconductand
unauthorizedsolicitations. Upon receipt of the complaint, we referred it to Court ofAppeals (CA)Associate
Justice Mariano C. del Castillo for investigation in order to ascertain the veracity of the complainants
[1]
accusationsandgrievances.
[2]
ThecomplaintstemmedfromacivilcaseforSupportwithaprayerforSupportPendenteLite filed by the

complainantonbehalfofhertwominorchildren,CarloandJayar,againstGeorgeButler,whodeniespaternity
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
[3]
mother (the complainant herein) within the first five (5) days of each month. A writ of execution was
subsequently issued which included the garnishing of rental payments for the apartments in Cubao, Quezon
City,whicharebeingmanagedbydefendantButler.ItwasatthisjuncturethatrespondentJudgeAsdalatook
cognizanceofthecase.
DuetothefailureofdefendantButlertocomplywiththeNovember12,1999Orderofthetrialcourt,despite
severalreprimandsandorderstoimplement,complainantEdaomovedtocitedefendantButlerincontempt.On
November23,2004,respondentJudgeAsdalafounddefendantButlerguiltyofindirectcontemptandsentenced
himtofour(4)monthsimprisonmentandaP30,000.00fine.SubsequentlyaBenchWarrantwasissuedagainst
[4]
defendantButler.

OnJanuary25,2005,afterprivatelymeetingwithdefendantButlerinherchambers,respondentJudge
AsdalaissuedthefollowingexparteOrder:
Following his knowledge of Bench Warrant against him, defendant George Butler, personally appeared
beforethePresidingJudgeandpleadedthatthecontemptfineimposedagainsthimbereducedtoP5,000.00and
thattheBenchWarrantberecalled.
Thematterwillbetakenunderadvisement.
[5]
SOORDERED.

ThefollowingexparteOrderwasalsoissuedbyrespondentJudgeAsdala:

[6]
Inthehighestinterestofjustice,theOctober7,2004andNovember26,2004 Orderfindingthedefendantguilty
ofindirectcontemptisherebyreconsidered.Assuch,thefineisreducedtoP5,000.00andthecorrespondingorder
ofimprisonmentissetaside.

[7]
SOORDERED.

[8]
On February 1, 2005, defendant Butler paid the P5,000.00 fine. On March 22, 2005, respondent Judge
[9]
Asdala dismissed complainant Edaos suit on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The case is now
pendingbeforetheCAaftertheappellatecourtorderedthetrialcourttogiveduecoursetothecomplainants
noticeofappeal.
In the complainants lettercomplaint, she laments the fact that without notice, much less consent, respondent

JudgeAsdalametprivatelywithdefendantButlerinherchamberstodiscussthefindingofindirectcontempt
against the latter without any hearing or minutes of the proceedings and without her or her counsels
participation.Asaresultofthesaidprivatemeeting,thefinewasreducedfromP30,000toP5,000,theorderof
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.
RowenaAlejandria,withthePublicAttorneysOffice(PAO),asrespondentJudgeAsdalahadagrudgeagainst
Atty.Alejandria.She likewise claims that she was given P1,000 by respondent JudgeAsdala for her silence.
ThecomplainantalsofaultsrespondentJudgeAsdalafororderingthesupportpendentelitetobedepositedwith
theOfficeoftheClerkofCourtinsteadofbeingdirectlygiventothecomplainantandforapplyingthemoney
thus deposited to the payment of the P5,000 fine instead of being given to the complainant. Further, she
questionsthedismissalofthecivilcaseforsupportonthegroundofinsufficiencyofevidence,allegingthatthe
basisofthefindingsisthetestimonyofButlerwhichwasalreadystrickenofftherecordasofJanuary28,2001.
AsagainstrespondentMyrlaNicandro,thecomplainantallegesthattheformersubtractedcertainamountsfrom
theP10,000depositedbydefendantButlersdaughter,Cristy,beforeturningoverthemoneytoher.Allegedly,
the amounts subtracted were given to the respondents. The complainant likewise questions respondent
Nicandros discharge of the functions of OfficerinCharge (OIC)/ Acting Branch Clerk of Court when the
SupremeCourt,throughtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator(OCA),didnotapproveherdesignationassuch.
Inherdefense,respondentJudgeAsdalaaversthattherecallofthebenchwarrantandthereductionofthefine
aremattersofjudicialdiscretion.Sheinsiststhat,aftertherepresentationofMr.Butlerofhisfinancialinability
topaytheoriginalfine,theamendmenttoherpreviousorderswasmoreinkeepingwithjusticeandfairness.
RespondentJudgeAsdalalikewisedeniesthechargesthatsheinstigatedacomplaintagainstAtty.Alejandria.
ShepointstothefactthatthecomplainantherselfwrotealetterofapologydatedNovember19,2004toAtty.
Alejandria withdrawing her complaint and retracting the statements made therein. As for the designation of
respondentNicandroasOICforadministrativeservicesinBranch87,respondentJudgeAsdalaaversthatthe
samewaswiththeknowledgeoftheExecutiveJudgeofQuezonCityandthataspresidingjudgeofBranch87,
she has the discretion and the authority to appoint whoever has her trust and confidence. With regard to the
decisiontodismissthecivilcaseforsupport,respondentJudgeAsdalamaintainsthattheproperremedyisto
elevatethemattertotheappellatecourtandnottofileanadministrativecaseagainsther.
RespondentNicandro,forherpart,deniesmisrepresentingherselfasOIC.Sheaversthatshewasactingunder
thedesignationmadebyrespondentJudgeAsdala,withtheknowledgeoftheExecutiveJudge.Asfortheother
accusations made by the complainant, respondent Nicandro insists that the same are blatant lies. She denies
solicitingmoneyfromthecomplainant,andaversthatitwasinfactthecomplainantwhowouldfrequentlygo
to Branch 87 and borrow money from the court personnel who, out of pity, would oblige to lend her small
amountsfromtimetotime.ShemaintainsthatatthetimethecomplainantclaimedtheP10,000 deposited by
Butler,respondentNicandroremindedherofherdebtstoanumberofcourtpersonnelP400toprocessserver
Lito de la Cruz, P100 to SheriffVictorYaneza, and P100 to court stenographer Elenita Ribaya. Respondent

Nicandro allegedly reminded the complainant that she owed respondent JudgeAsdala P500 which the latter
gaveaspaymentforSheriffsfee.Thepayment,however,wasnolongeracceptedbytherespondentjudgewho,
instead, directed respondent Nicandro to use the same to buy snacks for the court staff. The same was
corroboratedbyrespondentJudgeAsdala.
AsstatedintheInvestigationReportandRecommendationoftheInvestigatingJustice,theactofajudgedone
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,itistheconductofrespondentJudgeAsdalainmeetingwithdefendantButlerwithoutnotice
orknowledge,muchlessthepresence,ofthecomplainantorherrepresentativethatisassailed. The meeting
wasnotaninnocuousoneforitresultedinthecancellationofthebenchwarrant,therevocationoftheorderof
imprisonment and the significant reduction in the amount of fine from P30,000.00 to P5,000.00. Respondent
JudgeAsdaladoesnotdenytheprivatemeeting,muchlessexplainitscircumstances.Asrightlyobservedby
theInvestigatingJustice,theprivatemeetingwasimproper,tosaytheleast.Itdeprivedthecomplainantofher
righttobeheardonmattersaffectinghervitalinterests.Thesecretmeetingcannotbutinvitesuspicion,forno
minutes or stenographic notes of the meeting have been presented, if any existed. Respondent judge cannot
feignignoranceofthefactthatourcourtsarecourtsofrecord.
As the visible representation of the law and justice, judges, such as the respondent, are expected to conduct
[10]
themselvesinamannerthatwouldenhancetherespectandconfidenceofthepeopleinthejudicialsystem.
[11]
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
mandates that judges must not only
maintaintheirindependence,integrityandimpartialitybuttheymustalsoavoidanyappearanceofimpropriety
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
[12]
personaldemeanorofjudges.
Thisstandardappliesnotonlytothedecisionitself,butalsototheprocessby
whichthedecisionismade.Section1,Canon2,specificallymandatesjudgestoensurethatnotonlyistheir
conductabovereproach,butthatitisperceivedtobesointheviewofreasonableobservers.Clearly, it is of
vital importance not only that independence, integrity and impartiality have been observed by judges and
reflectedintheirdecisions,butthatthesemustalsoappeartohavebeensoobservedintheeyesofthepeople,
[13]
soastoavoidanyerosionoffaithinthejusticesystem.
Thus,judgesmustbecircumspectintheiractions
in order to avoid doubt and suspicion in the dispensation of justice. To further emphasize its importance,
Section2,Canon2states:

Sec.2.Thebehaviorandconductofjudgesmustreaffirmthepeoplesfaithintheintegrityofthejudiciary.
Justicemustnotmerelybedonebutmustalsobeseentobedone.

AsearlyasJune6,2003,OCACircularNo.702003hasdirectedjudgesasfollows:

InviewoftheincreasingnumberofreportsreachingtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorthatjudgeshavebeen
meeting with party litigants inside their chambers, judges are hereby cautioned to avoid inchambers sessions
withouttheotherpartyandhiscounselpresent,andtoobserveprudenceatalltimesintheirconducttothe
[14]
endthattheyonlyactimpartiallyandwithproprietybutarealsoperceivedtobeimpartialandproper.

Impartialityisessentialtotheproperdischargeofthejudicialoffice.Itappliesnotonlytothedecisionitselfbut
[15]
alsototheprocessbywhichthedecisionismade.
Assuch,judgesmustensurethattheirconduct,bothin
andoutofthecourt,maintainsandenhancestheconfidenceofthepublic,thelegalprofessionandlitigantsin
[16]
theimpartialityofthejudgeandofthejudiciary.
Inthesamevein,theCodeofJudicialConductbehooves
alljudgestoavoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyinalltheiractivities,assuchisessentialto
theperformanceofalltheactivitiesofajudgeinordertomaintainthetrustandrespectofthepeopleinthe
[17]
judiciary.
In the case at bar, respondent Judge Asdalas actions as above discussed put into question the impartiality,
independence,andintegrityoftheprocessbywhichthequestionedamendedorderswerereached.Heractions
miserablyfellshortinthedischargeofherdutyasanofficerofthecourtandasalivingembodimentoflawand
justice.
Further,respondentJudgeAsdala,ininsistingonthedesignationofrespondentNicandroasOIC,blithelyand
willfully disregarded the Memorandum of this Court, through the OCA, which approved the designation of
[18]
Amy Soneja alone and not in conjunction with respondent Nicandro as OIC.
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
ConstitutiongrantsthisCourtadministrativesupervisionoverallthecourtsandpersonnelthereof.Inthecaseat
bar,despitetheCourtsapprovalofAmySonejasdesignation,therespondentjudgeallowed,ifnotinsistedon,
thecontinueddischargeofthedutiesofOICbyrespondentNicandro.RespondentJudgeAsdalaevenhadthe
galltoinsistthataspresidingjudgeshehastheauthorityanddiscretiontodesignateanyonewhoworksunder
[19]
her, as long as that person enjoys her trust and confidence.
Coming from a judge, such arrogance, if not
ignorance,isinexcusable.ThememorandumfromtheOCAregardingthedesignationofcourtpersonnelisno
lessanorderfromthisCourt.Courtofficialsandpersonnel,particularlyjudges,areexpectedtocomplywith
thesame.Respondentjudgesgrossinsubordinationcannotbecountenanced.
ThisisnotthefirsttimethatrespondentJudgeAsdalahasbeendisciplinedandpenalizedbythisCourt.Shehas
[20]
been found guilty of various administrative complaints in at least four (4) other occasions.
In 1999, in
[21]
Dumlao,Jr.v.Asdala,
respondentJudgeAsdalawasadmonishedforpartiality.Ayearlater,inBowmanv.
[22]
Asdala,
she was fined P2,000.00 for grave abuse of discretion in nine (9) cases when she deliberately

withheldanddidnotattachacopyofherorderofinhibitionwhichresultedinthenontransmittaloftherecords
[23]
of the criminal cases. In 2005, in Manansala III v.Asdala,
she was likewise ordered to pay a fine of
[24]
P40,000.00,thehighestfinethatmaybeimposedforseriousoffensescommittedbyjudgesandjustices,
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 JudgeAsdala 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 GonzalesAsdala, RTCBranch 87, Quezon
City,forExtensionofthePeriodtoDecideCivilCaseNo.Q02
[25]
46950 & 14 Others,
this Court once again imposed a fine of P11,000.00 on respondent judge for her
repeatedandunjustifiablefailuretorenderdecisionswithintheprescribedperiod.Eachpenaltyimposedonher
inthesaidcasescamewithasternwarningthatthesubsequentcommissionofthesameorsimilaroffenseshall
bedealtwithmoreseverely.RespondentJudgeAsdalahastimeandtimeagainblatantlydisregardedthisstream
of warnings. Such repeated infractions and heedless transgressions can no longer be countenanced by this
Court.Aswehaverepeatedlystressed,thereisnoplaceinthejudiciaryforthosewhocannotmeettheexacting
[26]
standardsofjudicialconductandintegrity.
Bethatasitmay,theaccusationthatrespondentJudgeAsdalainstigatedthecomplainanttofileacomplaint
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
complaintasthematterisonappealwiththeCAandappealistheappropriateremedyoftheaggrievedparty.
RespondentNicandro,onherpart,hasbeenaccusedofusurpingthefunctionsofOIC.Whilesheactedonthe
strengthofthememorandumofrespondentJudgeAsdaladesignatingherassuch,itisundeniablethatsheis
awareofthememorandumofthisCourt,throughtheOCA,approvingAmySonejasdesignationasOIC/Branch
ClerkofCourt.RespondentNicandroscontinuedexerciseofthefunctionsofOICafterthedisapprovalofher
designationisacleardefianceoftheinstructionofthisCourt.
As to the charge of unauthorized solicitation, it is clear that respondent Nicandro, at the very least, acted as
collectionagentofthe
office staff with regard to the alleged amounts owed by complainant. Such action on the part of respondent
Nicandrolackstheproprietyandproperdecorumexpectedofacourtpersonnel.Thisisnotthefirsttimethat
this Court had censured respondent Nicandros behavior in dealing with party litigants. Early this year, on
February12,2007,shewasfinedforgrossinsubordinationforherwillfulfailureandindifferencetotheorders
ofthisCourtdespitehavingbeenfoundincontemptforherrefusaltocomplywiththesaidorders.Shewasalso

[27]
reprimandedforwillfulfailuretopayajustdebtdespiterepeateddemandsfromthecomplainanttherein.
Suchinfractionsareconducthighlyprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservice.
ThisCourthasrepeatedlystresseditsunbendingpolicynottotolerateorcondoneanyactoromission
thatfallsshortoftheexactingnormsofpublicoffice,especiallyonthoseexpectedtopreservetheimageofthe
judiciary.Again,thisCourtwillnotshirkfromitsresponsibilityofweedingoutthosewhostaintheintegrity
anddignityofthejudiciary.
INVIEWWHEREOF,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1.RespondentJudgeFatimaG.AsdalaisfoundGUILTYofgrossinsubordinationandgrossmisconduct
unbefitting a member of the judiciary and is accordingly DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all
salaries,benefitsandleavecreditstowhichshemaybeentitled.

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
accordinglySUSPENDEDfromtheserviceforaperiodofsixty(60)days,withoutpay,commencingonthe
dayimmediatelyfollowingherreceiptofacopyofthisDecision,withawarningthatarepetitionofthesameor
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. The period of suspension shall not be chargeable against her
leavecredits.Respondent Nicandro is likewise ordered to immediately cease and desist from discharging the
functionsofOIC/BranchClerkofCourtandfromrepresentingherselfassuch.

Respondent Nicandro is likewise REPRIMANDED for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
serviceandorderedtoabstainfromtransactingwithpartylitigantsotherthanforofficialpurposes.

SOORDERED.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGCONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice