Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > April 2007 Resolutions > [OCA-IPI No. 97-467-RTJ : April 11, 2007] EVELYN MENDOZA DE LOS REYES, ET AL. V. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, RTC, BRANCH 89, QUEZON CITY :

Quoted hereunder for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 11 APRIL 2007

OCA-IPI No. 97-467-RTJ - (Evelyn Mendoza de los Reyes, et al. v. Judge Fatima G. Asdala, RTC, Branch 89, Quezon City)

R E S O L U T I ON

Considering the Report and Recommendation dated February 17, 2000 of the then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, to wit:

1. SWORN LETTER-COMPLAINT dated October 15, 1997 of Evelyn Mendoza, Juliet Mendoza Santos, Henry B. Mendoza and Ramses B. Mendoza, with attachments, charging respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala with gross misconduct and grave abuse of discretion relative to Special Proceeding No. Q-93-18374, entitled "Petition for Guardianship of the Incompetent, Aurora Ruiz Bristol Mendoza; Jimmy Mendoza, et al., petitioners" and Civil Case No. Q-93-18375, entitled "Jimmy B. Mendoza, et al. vs. Milkie Atan Roman, Jr. for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage."
   
   Complainants, petitioners and plaintiffs in the above-mentioned cases, allege that respondent Judge committed grave misconduct by appointing on September 17, 1996 as guardian ad-litem of their mother Aurora Ruiz Bristol Mendoza, one Cecilia Siapian-Reyes, who is a daughter of Atty. Rolando Siapian, the legal counsel of their mother in the subject cases pending before the court of respondent Judge. Complainants further allege that respondent Judge, in an order dated September 2, 1997, authorized Cecilia Siapian-Reyes to withdraw the amount of P500,000.00 from the account of their mother at Solid Bank, Timog Branch, principally to pay for attorneys and legal expenses.
   
   Complainants narrate that the guardian ad-litem Cecilia Siapian-Reyes, ably assisted by her father, succeeded in withdrawing the aforementioned amount as shown in the letter of the Solid Bank Branch Manager, Meneleo C. Serrano, dated September 16, 1997, without awaiting finality of the order or for such order to be served on their legal counsel, Atty. Federico R. Agcaoili.
   
   According to complainants, Atty. Siapian asked respondent Judge to authorize release of all the funds of their mother with Solid Bank in his Motion for Reconsideration dated September 22, 1997 and despite the Petition for Certiorari filed by their counsel with the Court of Appeals, respondent Judge appeared to be determined to favor Atty. Siapian's every move by hearing the incident on October 10, 1997 without notice to their counsel who received notice thereof only on October 13, 1997.
   
   Complainants aver that respondent Judge has been acting on motions which have not been set for hearing despite the protest of their counsel. Moreover, at the hearing set on October 17, 1997 at 8:30 a.m. for the cross-examination of Aurora Ruiz Bristol Mendoza, there was no notice sent to their counsel.
   
   Complainants report that in a [R]esolution dated October 7, 1997, the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals required the private respondents therein to file their Comment to the petition for certiorari and deferred action on the application for temporary restraining order and injunction until after submission of the Comment (CA-G.R. SP No. 45441).
   
   
2. COMMENT dated December 15, 1997 of respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala DENYING the substantial allegations in the complaint.
   
   Respondent Judge narrates that the subject two cases were filed by the herein complainants sometime in 1993. Immediately after the cases were filed, both were consolidated upon complainants' motion in Branch 87. Shortly after the testimony of Jimmy Mendoza, Evelyn Mendoza delos Reyes and Juliet Mendoza Santos, Aurora Ruiz was presumed incompetent after Judge Elsie Ligot Telan's declaration that she was a spendthrift. Consequently, her money deposited with Solidbank Timog Branch was placed under restraint for twenty days and Evelyn delos Reyes was appointed guardian ad-litem. Later, she was substituted by Juliet Mendoza.
   
   Respondent Judge continues that for some reasons, Judge Telan inhibited herself from the cases and the same were thereafter raffled to Branch 89. The then Presiding Judge did not act on the various motions filed by Aurora Ruiz Bristol Mendoza opposing/contesting her declaration as spendthrift and restrain on her property through her then lawyer Atty. Rolando Siapian, until such time that herein respondent took over as judge-on-detail.
   
   On August 20, 1996, a "Motion for Termination and Substitution of Guardian Ad-litem" was filed by Aurora Ruiz Bristol Mendoza, praying for the revocation of the designation of Juliet Mendoza as guardian ad-litem, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Respondent Judge alleges that said motion was set for hearing on September 4, 1997 then to September 13, 1996, with notice to complainants' counsel. Atty. Federico Agcaoili however failed to appear at the hearing or file an opposition to the motion. On September 17, 1996 an Order was issued granting oppositor Mendoza's prayer for a new guardian ad-litem.
   
   Respondent Judge explains that she did not deem it necessary to immediately act on the incident, in view of the report to the Court of Aurora Mendoza that Ma. Celia Reyes was never allowed to perform her duties as such by the substituted guardian ad-litem. The report in open court was later confirmed by the Manifestation and Compliance dated October 23, 1997 submitted by Ma. Cecilia Reyes.
   
   On June 27, 1997, Aurora Mendoza reiterated her earlier motion for authority to withdraw from her accounts with the Solid Bank. Finding no justifiable reason to deny her such right and considering that the period of restraint has expired and no other order was issued by the previous judges who heard the cases extending the restraint; and complainants have not even finished presenting their evidence in support of the twin petitions, despite the lapse of four (4) years, the Court issued an Order on September 2, 1997, allowing Mrs. Mendoza to withdraw from her Solid Bank Account.
   
   Respondent Judge stresses that the Order specifically named Aurora Mendoza herself and not Ma. Cecilia Reyes, to do the withdrawal, since at that time, Ms. Reyes has not yet assumed her duties as such, for reasons stated in her Manifestation/Compliance.
   
   On September 25, 1997, oppositor Aurora Mendoza filed an urgent motion to set case for hearing and another motion to revoke the designation of Ma. Cecilia Reyes as guardian ad-litem through her new counsel, Atty. Antonio Olivete, citing as reasons, among others, the long pendency of the case resulting in the continuous deprivation of Aurora of the right to manage her person and properties rightfully and lawfully belonging to her.
   
   Respondent Judge further narrates that the motion was set for hearing on September 30, 1997, with notice to complainant's counsel. Since the Court's Motion days are Fridays and September 30, 1997 was a Tuesday, the motion was instead calendared for hearing on October 3, 1997, a Friday.
   
   On said date, noticing the absence of the complainants and their counsel, respondent Judge, without objection on the part of oppositor's lawyer, reset the hearing of the case to October 10, 1997.
   
   Respondent Judge alleges that the records show that Atty. Agcaoili received copy of oppositor's motion on October 6, 1997. On October 10, 1997, the scheduled hearing of the motion, Atty. Agcaoili despite notice, failed to appear, although complainants were all in Court.
   
   Respondent Judge asserts that the failure of counsel to appear had no justification. Hence, upon motion of Aurora Mendoza's lawyer that he be allowed to present evidence in support of oppositor's motion, she allowed her to do so subject to cross-examination of the complainants' lawyer. Respondent Judge argues that the Order of October 10, 1997 shows that she never denied complainants their right to due process, contrary to their malicious claims.
   
   Respondent Judge avers that for the purpose of cross-examination, hearing of the motion was continued to October 17, 1997, complainants being directed in open Court to advise their lawyer of the Court's ruling, which they undertook to do.
   
   According to respondent Judge, on October 17, 1997, instead of cross-examining the oppositor, Atty. Federico Agcaoili appeared but only to threaten herein respondent with administrative action, should she not stop hearing the motion.
   
   Respondent Judge argues that contrary to complainants' baseless claim, at no instance did she appear determined to favor oppositor or her lawyer because when the questioned motions filed by oppositor were acted upon all she did was to act the way a judge is expected to be. There was no haste at all in doing so, because every time incidents arose, complainants and their counsel, were notified and given their day in Court.
   
   Respondent Judge further argues that she cannot be blamed, if complainants, for reasons only known to them, refused to avail of their rights under the law.
   
   Respondent Judge opines that the Order dated October 17, 1997 served as an eye-opener for the complainants and their counsel because at the subsequent proceedings, aware of the warning set forth therein, they actively participated in the proceedings.
   
   Respondent Judge concludes that the complaint against her is baseless and is clearly intended to harass and destroy her good reputation as a judge.
   
   OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: In CA-G.R. Sp. No. 45441, Jimmy B. Mendoza, et al. vs. Hon. Fatima G. Asdala, etc., et al., December 15, 1997, the Court of Appeals, Justice Marina L. Buzon, ponente, and Justices Jainal D. Rasul and Eugenio S. Labitoria, concurring, dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit x x x. The petition sought to annul the order of the respondent Court authorizing withdrawal of the amount of P500,000.00 from the incompetent Aurora Ruiz Bristol Mendoza's bank account.
   
   EVALUATION: The charges against respondent Judge should be dismissed.
   
   There is no sufficient showing that Ma. Cecilia S. Reyes, the appointed guardian ad-litem of the incompetent Aurora Ruiz Bristol Mendoza, is the daughter of Aurora's counsel, Atty. Rolando Siapian. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough to sustain the charge that certain parties have been inordinately favored by the Judge's order or decision (See Gonzales vs. Bersamin, 254 SCRA 652 [1996]). And an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy against an aberrant Judge for his irregular act in office, especially when a judicial remedy exists and is available, such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal. And, if subsequent developments show the Judge's challenged act is correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all (See Santos vs. Orlino, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1448, September 25, 1998). Indeed, judges should not be intimidated by or he [sic] made fearful of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts done in the performance of their duties and functions. The prosecution of a judge is justified only if there is a final determination by a competent court of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order and evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance, or inexcusable negligence in the rendition of judgment or issuance of an order (See Flores v. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302 [1997]).
   
   In its decision in CA-G.R. No. 45441, the Court of Appeals did not find that the challenged order is manifestly unjust. Neither did it find malice or bad faith, ignorance, or inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent Judge in issuing the questioned order.
   
   RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is the recommendation that this case be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
   

and finding that the same is in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring members of the bench. At the same time, however, the Court should not hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. This Court could not be the instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench, by pronouncing guilt on mere speculation.^[1]

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala, Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City, is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Planas v. Reyes, A.M. RTJ-05-1905, February 23, 2005 citing Ong v. Rosete, A.M. No. 04-1538, October 22, 2004.