Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974)
Facts:
Carmen P. Edano v. Judge Fatima G. Asdala, RTC Br. 87, Quezon City, and Stenographer Myrla Del Pilar Nicandro, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2226-RTJ), July 26, 2007, Supreme Court En Banc, per curiam.Complainant Carmen P. Edano filed a handwritten administrative complaint to the Supreme Court (through the Assistant Court Administrator) charging Judge Fatima G. Asdala (RTC, Quezon City, Branch 87) with grave abuse of discretion and conduct unbecoming a judge, and charging Myrla Nicandro, a court stenographer detailed in Branch 87, with usurpation of authority, grave misconduct and unauthorized solicitations. The Court referred the matter to CA Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo for investigation.
The underlying case was a civil action for support (docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-30576) in which an earlier pairing judge, Teodoro A. Bay, on November 12, 1999 ordered defendant George Butler to pay support pendente lite of P5,000 monthly and a writ of execution included garnishment of Butler’s rental receipts. When Butler failed to comply, Edano moved to cite him for contempt. On November 23, 2004, upon taking cognizance of the matter, respondent Judge Asdala found Butler guilty of indirect contempt, imposed four months’ imprisonment and a P30,000 fine, and a bench warrant issued.
On January 25, 2005 Judge Asdala privately met with Butler in her chambers and thereafter issued an ex parte order taking the matter under advisement and then an order “reconsidering” prior contempt findings, reducing the fine to P5,000, setting aside imprisonment and resulting in the recall of the bench warrant; Butler paid P5,000 on February 1, 2005. On March 22, 2005 Judge Asdala dismissed Edano’s civil support case for insufficiency of evidence. Edano appealed; the case was pending before the Court of Appeals, which later ordered the trial court to give due course to the complainant’s notice of appeal.
Edano alleged that Judge Asdala met Butler privately without notice to or presence of the complainant or her counsel, resulting in the significant alterations of prior orders; that Asdala forced Edano to file a complaint against her own counsel and even gave Edano P1,000 for her silence; that money deposited with the Clerk was applied to pay the reduced fine instead of being given to Edano; and that Nicandro subtracted amounts from a P10,000 cash deposit and that Nicandro was discharging OIC duties without OCA approval.
Judge Asdala defended the private meeting and the amendments as exercises of judicial discretion in light of Butler’s claimed inability to pay, denied instigating any complaint against counsel and asserted that her designation of personnel was within her purview as presiding judge (with the knowledge of the Executive Judge). Nicandro denied misrepresenting herself as OIC and said she acted under the judge’s designation and reminded Edano of debts she allegedly owed to court staff.
The Investigating Justice found the private in-chambers meeting improper because it deprived Edano of the right to be heard and invited suspicion absent minutes or stenographic notes; cited the New Code of Judicial Conduct and OCA Circular No. 70-2003 admonishing judges to avoid in-chambers sessions with litigants without the other party and counsel present. The Investigating Justice also found that respondent Asdala persisted in allowing Nicandro to function as OIC despite an OCA memorandum approving only Amy Soneja as OIC/Branch Clerk of Court. The Investigating Justice recommended disciplinary action for the improper meeting and for defiance of the OCA memorandum; allegations that Asdala instigated a complaint against counsel and that dismissal of the civil case were insufficient or inappropriate grounds for discipline (the latter being s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Asdala’s private in-chambers meeting and ex parte modification of contempt orders without notice to the opposing party constitute actionable administrative misconduct or grave misconduct?
- Did respondent Asdala’s insistence on allowing Myrla Nicandro to act as OIC despite the OCA’s approval of another person constitute insubordination or usurpation of authority?
- Were the charges that Judge Asdala instigated a complaint against counsel and that dismissal of the civil support case con...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)