Edaño vs. Asdala

A judge commits gross misconduct by holding an ex parte chamber meeting with a party litigant that results in orders prejudicing the adverse party, and gross insubordination by willfully disregarding an OCA memorandum on court personnel designation; the appearance of impartiality is as essential as impartiality itself, and repeated administrative offenses despite prior warnings justify dismissal from service.

Carmen P. Edaño, on behalf of her two minor children, filed a civil case for support with a prayer for support pendente lite against George Butler, who denied paternity. The trial court ordered Butler to pay ₱5,000 monthly support and later issued a writ of execution garnishing rental payments. After Butler failed to comply, Edaño moved to cite him in contempt. On November 23, 2004, respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala found Butler guilty of indirect contempt, sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment and a ₱30,000 fine, and issued a bench warrant. On January 25, 2005, following a private chamber meeting with Butler and without the presence of Edaño or her counsel, respondent judge issued ex-parte orders reconsidering the contempt penalty, reducing the fine to ₱5,000, setting aside imprisonment, and recalling the bench warrant. Butler paid the reduced fine. The civil case was eventually dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, which Edaño appealed. Edaño also complained that respondent judge forced her to file a complaint against her own lawyer, misapplied deposited support money, and that respondent Nicandro deducted amounts from deposited funds and acted as OIC without authority.

• The Support Case and Contempt Order: Complainant filed a civil action for support pendente lite on behalf of her two minor children against George Butler. The pairing judge ordered Butler to pay ₱5,000 monthly support. After Butler’s continued non-compliance, complainant moved for contempt. On November 23, 2004, respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala found Butler guilty of indirect contempt, imposed a fine of ₱30,000 and four months’ imprisonment, and issued a bench warrant.
• The Private Chamber Meeting and Amended Orders: On January 25, 2005, without notice to complainant or her counsel, respondent Judge Asdala met privately with Butler in her chambers. Butler pleaded for reduction of the fine and recall of the bench warrant. No minutes or stenographic notes were taken. Following this meeting, respondent judge issued ex-parte orders reconsidering the contempt finding, reducing the fine to ₱5,000, setting aside the imprisonment, and recalling the bench warrant. Butler paid the reduced fine on February 1, 2005.
• Dismissal of Support Case: On March 22, 2005, respondent judge dismissed the civil suit for insufficiency of evidence. Complainant appealed; the Court of Appeals later directed the trial court to give due course to the notice of appeal.
• Allegations of Compelled Complaint and Gift: Complainant alleged that respondent judge pressured her to file a neglect-of-duty complaint against her counsel, Atty. Rowena Alejandria, with the Public Attorney’s Office, and gave her ₱1,000 for her silence.
• Misapplication of Support Deposits: Complainant asserted that respondent judge ordered support pendente lite deposited with the Office of the Clerk of Court and applied those funds to the ₱5,000 contempt fine instead of releasing them to her.
• Allegations Against Stenographer Nicandro: Complainant charged respondent Myrla Nicandro with deducting certain amounts from the ₱10,000 deposited by Butler’s daughter for debts allegedly owed to court personnel, and with discharging the functions of Officer-in-Charge/Acting Branch Clerk of Court without OCA approval.
• Defense of Judge Asdala: Respondent judge argued that the recall of the bench warrant and reduction of fine were matters of judicial discretion, warranted by Butler’s financial inability to pay the original fine. She denied instigating the complaint against Atty. Alejandria, citing complainant’s subsequent letter of apology and retraction. She insisted that as presiding judge she had the authority to designate Nicandro as OIC with the Executive Judge’s knowledge, and that the dismissal of the civil case should be challenged on appeal, not administratively.
• Defense of Nicandro: Respondent Nicandro denied misrepresenting herself as OIC, claiming she acted under respondent judge’s designation with the Executive Judge’s knowledge. She denied soliciting money and countered that complainant frequently borrowed from court staff; she merely reminded complainant of her debts to process servers, a sheriff, and another stenographer. She explained that ₱500 meant for respondent judge as a sheriff’s fee was instead used to buy snacks for court staff at the judge’s direction.

• Improper Ex Parte Meeting: Complainant argued that respondent judge’s private chamber meeting with Butler, without her knowledge or participation, and the resultant orders reducing the contempt penalty and recalling the bench warrant constituted grave abuse of discretion, partiality, and conduct unbecoming a judge.
• Instigation and Bribe: Complainant alleged that respondent judge forced her to file an administrative complaint against her own counsel and gave her money to keep quiet.
• Misapplication of Funds: Complainant claimed respondent judge ordered support pendente lite deposited with the Clerk of Court and applied it to the contempt fine rather than releasing it directly to her.
• Wrongful Dismissal: Complainant questioned the dismissal of the civil case based on evidence already stricken from the record.
• Unauthorized Deductions and Usurpation by Nicandro: Complainant charged Nicandro with deducting amounts from the deposited money and exercising the functions of OIC without proper OCA authority.

• Judicial Discretion: Respondent Judge Asdala maintained that reconsidering the contempt order, reducing the fine, and recalling the bench warrant fell within judicial discretion, as Butler’s financial inability made the amendments more consistent with justice and fairness.
• Withdrawal of Counsel Complaint: She pointed to complainant’s own letter of apology retracting the complaint against Atty. Alejandria as proof that the charge of instigation was baseless.
• Authority to Designate OIC: She asserted that as presiding judge she had the discretion and authority to designate anyone enjoying her trust and confidence to serve as OIC, and that the Executive Judge of Quezon City was aware of Nicandro’s designation.
• Appeal as Proper Remedy: She argued that the correctness of the civil case dismissal should be ventilated on appeal, not through an administrative complaint.
• Nicandro’s Denial of Solicitation: Respondent Nicandro denied misrepresenting herself as OIC, maintaining she acted under respondent judge’s directive. She claimed the deductions were for personal debts complainant owed to individual court employees, not illegal solicitations.

• Impropriety of Ex Parte Meeting: Whether respondent Judge Asdala’s private chamber meeting with defendant Butler without notice to and in the absence of the adverse party, culminating in amended orders materially favorable to Butler, constituted gross misconduct and violated judicial ethics.
• Defiance of OCA Memorandum: Whether respondent judge’s insistence on retaining Nicandro as OIC despite an OCA memorandum designating another person constituted gross insubordination.
• Instigation of Complaint Against Counsel: Whether respondent judge instigated the complainant to file an administrative complaint against her lawyer.
• Dismissal of Civil Case as Administrative Ground: Whether the dismissal of the support case could be a basis for administrative discipline when the matter was on appeal.
• Stenographer’s Usurpation of OIC Functions: Whether respondent Nicandro’s continued exercise of OIC functions after OCA disapproval constituted insubordination.
• Stenographer’s Conduct with Litigant: Whether Nicandro’s deduction of personal debts from deposited money amounted to unauthorized solicitation or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

• Impropriety of Ex Parte Meeting: The ex parte chamber meeting was not a mere exercise of discretion but gross misconduct. The private session deprived complainant of her right to be heard on matters directly affecting her interests. The absence of minutes or stenographic notes invited suspicion and violated the nature of courts as courts of record. The New Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges must not only maintain impartiality but avoid any appearance of impropriety; justice must not merely be done but must be seen to be done. OCA Circular No. 70-2003 explicitly cautions judges against in-chambers sessions without the other party and counsel present. Respondent judge’s actions irreparably tainted the process and undermined public faith in the judiciary.
• Defiance of OCA Memorandum: Respondent judge’s willful disregard of the OCA memorandum approving only Amy Soneja as OIC constituted gross insubordination. The Constitution vests administrative supervision over all courts and personnel in the Supreme Court; an OCA memorandum carries the force of a Court order and must be obeyed. Her insistence on personal prerogative exhibited arrogance if not ignorance, which is inexcusable.
• Instigation of Complaint Against Counsel: This charge was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
• Dismissal of Civil Case as Administrative Ground: The dismissal of the civil case could not be a ground for administrative sanction, the proper remedy being the appeal already pending before the Court of Appeals.
• Stenographer’s Usurpation of OIC Functions: Nicandro’s continuance in the OIC role after knowledge of the OCA disapproval was a clear defiance of the Court’s instruction, warranting a finding of insubordination. She was suspended for sixty days without pay.
• Stenographer’s Conduct with Litigant: Nicandro’s act of deducting personal debts from the deposited money, effectively acting as a “collection agent” for office staff, lacked the propriety and decorum expected of court personnel. She was reprimanded for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and ordered to cease transacting with litigants outside official purposes.

• Appearance of Impartiality Doctrine — Under Canon 2, Sections 1 and 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must ensure not only that their conduct is above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so by reasonable observers. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done. This standard applies to the process by which a decision is made, not solely to the decision itself. An ex parte chamber meeting with one party to the prejudice of another destroys the appearance of impartiality and erodes public confidence.
• Prohibition on In-Chambers Sessions — OCA Circular No. 70-2003 explicitly directs judges to avoid in-chambers sessions without the other party and counsel present. Violation of this directive constitutes gross misconduct.
• Administrative Supervision of the Supreme Court — The Constitution grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof. An OCA memorandum is an order of the Court; a judge’s deliberate defiance amounts to gross insubordination.
• Repeated Infractions and Dismissal — A pattern of repeated administrative offenses, committed despite prior penalties and stern warnings, justifies the ultimate penalty of dismissal. There is no room in the judiciary for those who fail to meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.

• “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.”
• “Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.” — Applied to condemn the ex parte process that eroded the appearance of impartiality.
• “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.”
• “…there is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.”

• Dumlao, Jr. v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1428 (1999) — First administrative case against respondent judge; cited to demonstrate a pattern of misconduct, where she was admonished for partiality.
• Bowman v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1546 (2000) — Second case; respondent judge fined for grave abuse of discretion; used as evidence of recidivism.
• Manansala III v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1916 (2005) — Third case; fined ₱40,000 for gross misconduct after interfering with a detainee’s case; underscored the escalating nature of penalties.
• Request of Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala, A.M. No. 05-10-618-RTC (2006) — Fourth case; fined ₱11,000 for repeated failure to decide cases on time; marked the fourth administrative infraction.
• Capuno v. Jaramillo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-944 (1994) — Cited for the standard that judges, as the visible representation of law, must enhance public respect and confidence, and that the appearance of impartiality is as vital as its substance.
• Macrina M. Bisnar v. Myrla P. Nicandro, A.M. No. P-00-1427 (2007) — Prior discipline of respondent Nicandro for gross insubordination and failure to pay just debt; established her pattern of unbecoming conduct.

• Canon 2, Sections 1 and 2, New Code of Judicial Conduct (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC) — Applied to rule that the judge’s private meeting violated the duty to ensure conduct is above reproach and perceived as such, and that justice must be seen to be done.
• Canon 3, Section 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Impartiality applies to the process; the ex parte meeting destroyed the integrity of the process.
• Canon 4, Section 1, Code of Judicial Conduct — Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
• OCA Circular No. 70-2003 (June 6, 2003) — Directly prohibits in-chambers sessions without the other party and counsel; violated by respondent judge, constituting gross misconduct.
• Constitutional Power of Administrative Supervision — The Court underscored that OCA memoranda are binding on judges as orders of the Supreme Court; defiance thereof is insubordination.

Reynato S. Puno (Chief Justice), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Cancio C. Garcia, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura.