A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 - Edano vs. Asdala

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974)

Factual Background: The Support Case and Contempt Proceedings

In the underlying support case, 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 within the first five days of each month to the complainant. A writ of execution followed, which included the garnishment of rental payments from the Cubao apartments in Quezon City managed by Butler.

After the writ stage, respondent Judge Asdala took cognizance of the case. Butler repeatedly failed to comply with the November 12, 1999 Order despite several reprimands and directives. Consequently, Edano moved to cite Butler in contempt. On November 23, 2004, Judge Asdala found Butler guilty of indirect contempt, sentencing him to four (4) months imprisonment and a P30,000.00 fine. A Bench Warrant was issued against Butler.

The Ex-parte Private Meetings and the Amended Orders

On January 25, 2005, after privately meeting with Butler in her chambers, Judge Asdala issued two ex-parte orders. In the first, she stated that, because Butler personally appeared before the presiding judge and pleaded for a reduction of the contempt fine and recall of the bench warrant, the matter would be taken under advisement. In the second ex-parte order, she reconsidered the earlier orders finding Butler guilty of indirect contempt, reduced the fine to P5,000.00, set aside the corresponding imprisonment, and recalled the order of imprisonment accordingly. Butler paid the reduced fine on February 1, 2005.

Later, on March 22, 2005, the trial court dismissed Edano’s support case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The case remained pending before the Court of Appeals, after the appellate court ordered the trial court to give due course to Edano’s notice of appeal.

The Administrative Complaint and the Allegations Against the Respondents

In her letter-complaint, Edano alleged that Judge Asdala met privately with Butler without notice, without her or her counsel’s participation, and without any hearing or minutes of proceedings, yet amended the contempt orders. Edano asserted that the private meeting resulted in the reduction of the fine from P30,000 to P5,000, the deletion of the imprisonment order, and the recall of the bench warrant.

Edano further claimed that Judge Asdala compelled her to file a complaint for neglect of duty against her own counsel, Atty. Rowena Alejandria, with the Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO), allegedly due to Judge Asdala’s grudge against Atty. Alejandria. Edano also alleged that Judge Asdala gave her P1,000 for silence.

Edano criticized Judge Asdala’s management of support payments by alleging that the trial court ordered support pendente lite to be deposited with the Office of the Clerk of Court rather than directly given to her, and that money thus deposited was applied to the P5,000 fine instead of being delivered to her. She also questioned the dismissal of the civil support case for insufficiency of evidence, stating that the basis of the contempt findings allegedly came from Butler’s testimony which she claimed had been stricken off the record as early as January 28, 2001.

As against respondent Myrla Nicandro, Edano alleged that Nicandro subtracted certain amounts from a P10,000 deposit made by Butler’s daughter, Cristy, before turning over the money, and that the subtracted amounts were given to the respondents. Edano also questioned Nicandro’s discharge of the functions of Officer-in-Charge (OIC)/Acting Branch Clerk of Court, asserting that the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), did not approve Nicandro’s designation.

The Respondents’ Defenses

Judge Asdala argued that the recall of the bench warrant and the reduction of the contempt fine were matters of judicial discretion. She insisted that after Butler represented his financial inability to pay the original fine, amending the orders was consistent with justice and fairness. She denied instigating a complaint against Atty. Alejandria, pointing out that Edano had written an apology dated November 19, 2004 to Atty. Alejandria withdrawing the complaint and retracting statements.

On Nicandro’s appointment as OIC for administrative services in Branch 87, Judge Asdala claimed that the arrangement had the knowledge of the Executive Judge of Quezon City, and that as presiding judge she retained discretion to appoint persons she trusted and considered suitable. As to the dismissal of the support case, she maintained that the proper remedy was to elevate the matter on appeal to the appellate court, not to file an administrative case.

Nicandro denied misrepresenting herself as OIC. She claimed she acted under the designation made by Judge Asdala with the knowledge of the Executive Judge. She denied soliciting money from Edano and contended that Edano frequently approached court personnel to borrow small sums out of pity. Nicandro added that when Edano claimed the P10,000 deposit, Nicandro reminded her of alleged debts Edano owed to various court personnel, and that a P500 payment made by Edano as payment for Sheriff’s fees was not accepted because the judge directed Nicandro to use the amount to buy snacks for court staff. Judge Asdala allegedly corroborated this account.

Scope of Review and the Administrative Focus

The investigation report and recommendation distinguished between the substance of the judge’s discretionary act and the alleged impropriety in the decision-making process. It noted that the exercise of discretion by a judge, such as reduction of the fine in contempt, should not be the subject of disciplinary action. The principal issue, rather, was the judge’s conduct in meeting privately with Butler without notice to the adverse party and without counsel, and the alleged absence of any record of the proceedings.

Judge Asdala did not deny the private meeting and did not adequately explain its circumstances. The investigating justice found it improper because it deprived Edano of the right to be heard on matters affecting vital interests. The secrecy of the meeting also invited suspicion, since no minutes or stenographic notes of the meeting were presented, if any existed. The investigating justice further emphasized that courts are courts of record, and that a judge could not feign ignorance of that requirement.

Judicial Conduct Standards: Impartiality, Appearance of Impropriety, and the Prohibition on In-Chambers Sessions

The Court anchored its assessment of Judge Asdala’s conduct on the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which requires judges not only to maintain independence, integrity, and impartiality, but also to avoid any appearance of impropriety that may erode public faith in the judiciary. The Court treated these standards as applying to both the decision and “the process by which the decision is made.”

Specifically, the Court cited Section 1, Canon 2, mandating that judges ensure their conduct is above reproach and is perceived as such by reasonable observers. The Court also cited Section 2, Canon 2, emphasizing that justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done, and it invoked OCA Circular No. 70-2003 (June 6, 2003), which directed judges to avoid in-chambers sessions without the other party and counsel present and to observe prudence in order to assure that judges act impartially and with propriety and are also perceived as such.

The Court stressed that impartiality is essential not only to the result but to the procedure. Judges were expected to conduct themselves in a manner that maintained and enhanced public confidence in judicial impartiality, including in their conduct outside the courtroom and during pre-decisional interactions with litigants.

The Court’s Findings Against Judge Asdala: Improper Ex-Parte Interaction

Applying the foregoing standards, the Court held that Judge Asdala’s actions put into question the impartiality, independence, and integrity of the process by which the amended orders were reached. It reasoned that the private meeting improperly influenced the amended outcomes: it resulted in cancellation of the bench warrant, revocation of the imprisonment order, and reduction of the fine from P30,000 to P5,000.

The Court faulted Judge Asdala for failing to accord Edano notice and participation. It found the meeting improper “at the least,” since it deprived Edano of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The Court also found that the absence of minutes or stenographic notes further compounded the appearance of irregularity, and it underscored the fundamental principle that a judge should conduct proceedings in a manner consistent with the character of courts of record.

Failure to Follow OCA Memorandum on OIC Designation

The Court also held that Judge Asdala, in insisting on Nicandro’s designation as OIC, disregarded the Memorandum through the OCA approving Amy Soneja alone as OIC, and not in conjunction with Nicandro. While it recognized that the presiding judge may recommend persons for positions, it held that such recommendation required approval by the Court. It further stated that, under the Constitution, the Court exercises administrative supervision over courts and personnel, and thus court officials and personnel, particularly judges, must comply with OCA and Court-approved designations.

The Court found Judge Asdala’s conduct in allowing Nicandro to continue discharging OIC duties despite disapproval to be insubordination and cited it as gross disregard of Court authority.

Pattern of Administrative Disciplinary History of Judge Asdala

The Court treated Judge Asdala’s conduct not as an isolated incident but as part of a repeated pattern of administrative transgressions. It recited prior cases where it had admonished or fined her, including Dumlao, Jr. v. Asdala (partiality), Bowman v. Asdala (grave abuse of discretion for withheld copy of an inhibition ord

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Carmen P. Edano filed a handwritten administrative complaint with the Supreme Court through Assistant Court Administrator Antonio H. Dujua dated March 28, 2005.
The complaint charged Judge Fatima G. Asdala, RTC Br. 87, Quezon City, with grave abuse of discretion and authority and conduct unbecoming of a judge.
The complaint likewise charged Myrla Del Pilar Nicandro, a stenographer detailed in the same RTC, with usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and unauthorized solicitations.
The Supreme Court referred the complaint to CA Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo for investigation to determine the veracity of the accusations.
The Court ultimately resolved the matter per curiam and rendered judgment finding both respondents administratively liable.
The decision relied on both the administrative findings and the record surrounding the orders issued by Judge Asdala in the contempt incident.

Underlying Litigation Facts

The administrative complaint arose from a civil case for Support with a prayer for Support Pendente Lite, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-97-30576.
The complainant filed the case on behalf of her two minor children, Carlo and Jay-ar, against George Butler.
George Butler denied paternity of the children.
Judge Teodoro A. Bay, while he presided as pairing judge, issued an Order dated November 12, 1999 directing Butler to provide support pendente lite in the amount of P5,000 per month, to be delivered to the mother within the first five days of each month.
A writ of execution followed, including the garnishing of rental payments for apartments in Cubao, Quezon City managed by Butler.
When Butler failed to comply with the November 12, 1999 order despite reprimands and orders to implement it, complainant Edano moved to cite Butler in contempt.
On November 23, 2004, respondent Judge Asdala found Butler guilty of indirect contempt and sentenced him to four months imprisonment and a P30,000.00 fine, and a Bench Warrant issued thereafter.
On January 25, 2005, Judge Asdala issued an ex-parte order after a private meeting with Butler in her chambers, taking the matter under advisement concerning the reduction of the contempt fine and recall of the bench warrant.
Judge Asdala later issued a second order reconsidering the contempt finding and reducing the fine to P5,000.00, setting aside the imprisonment order, and recalling the bench warrant.
After Butler paid the reduced fine on February 1, 2005, Judge Asdala dismissed the complainant’s support case on March 22, 2005 for insufficiency of evidence.
The civil case remained pending before the CA, after the appellate court ordered the trial court to give due course to Edano’s notice of appeal.

Key Allegations Against Judge

Complainant Edano alleged that Judge Asdala held a private meeting with Butler in chambers without notice or consent, and without a hearing or minutes of the proceedings, and without participation by the complainant or her counsel.
Edano asserted that the private meeting led to material results, including reduction of the contempt fine from P30,000 to P5,000, deletion of the imprisonment order, and recall of the Bench Warrant.
Edano alleged that Judge Asdala forced her to file an administrative complaint for neglect of duty against her own counsel, Atty. Rowena Alejandria, with the PAO, and Edano attributed this to an alleged grudge against Alejandria.
Edano claimed that Judge Asdala gave her P1,000 for her silence.
Edano faulted Judge Asdala for ordering support pendente lite to be deposited with the Office of the Clerk of Court rather than being directly given to her.
Edano further alleged that the deposits were applied to payment of the P5,000 fine instead of being delivered to her.
Edano questioned the dismissal of the civil case for support, asserting that the basis of the findings was Butler’s testimony which she claimed was already stricken off the record as of January 28, 2001.

Key Allegations Against Nicandro

As against Myrla Nicandro, complainant Edano alleged that Nicandro subtracted certain amounts from a P10,000 deposit made by Butler’s daughter Cristy before turning over money to her.
Edano alleged that the amounts subtracted were given to the respondents.
Edano challenged Nicandro’s discharge of the functions of OIC/Acting Branch Clerk of Court, insisting that the Supreme Court through the OCA did not approve Nicandro’s designation as OIC.

Judge Asdala’s Defenses

Judge Asdala averred that the recall of the bench warrant and the reduction of the fine were matters of judicial discretion.
Judge Asdala maintained that after Butler represented his financial inability to pay the original fine, her amendments to the earlier orders were more in keeping with justice and fairness.
Judge Asdala denied that she instigated the complaint against Atty. Alejandria.
Judge Asdala pointed to a supposed apology letter dated November 19, 2004 by Edano to Alejandria, withdrawing the complaint and retracting statements made therein.
On the OIC designation issue, Judge Asdala averred that she had discretion to appoint persons within her court and that the designation process had the knowledge of the Executive Judge of Quezon City.
On the dismissal of the support case, Judge Asdala asserted that the proper remedy was to elevate the matter to the appellate court rather than file an administrative case against her.
With respect to the contempt matter, Judge Asdala did not deny the propriety of her actions as exercises of discretion, but the administrative focus centered on the private meeting.

Nicandro’s Defenses

Nicandro denied misrepresenting herself as OIC.
Nicandro claimed she was acting under the designation made by Judge Asdala, with knowledge of the Executive Judge.
Nicandro denied the solicitation of money and characterized the complainant’s claim as blatant lies.
Nicandro asserted that Edano frequently visited Branch 87 and borrowed money from court personnel out of pity.
Nicandro maintained that when Edano claimed the P10,000 deposit, Nicandro reminded her of her debts to various court personnel, including amounts for processing, sheriff services, and court stenographer services.
Nicandro stated that she reminded Edano that Edano owed Judge Asdala P500, allegedly given as payment for sheriff’s fee, but that the judge then directed Nicandro to use the same to buy snacks for court staff.
Nicandro’s defenses were corroborated by Judge Asdala in the investigation record.

Issues Framed by the Court

The Court determined whether Judge Asdala’s private meeting with Butler regarding contempt, without notice to the complainant, violated the right to be heard and the standards of judicial conduct.
The Court assessed whether the reduction of fine and recall of the bench warrant could shield the judge from administrative liability when the process leading to those outcomes was tainted.
The Court evaluated whether Judge Asdala’s insistence on Nicandro’s continued performance as OIC/Branch Clerk of Court despite contrary OCA-