September 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > September 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2226-RTJ] : September 11, 2007] CARMEN P. EDAÑO V. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, RTC BRANCH 87, QUEZON CITY AND STENOGRAPHER MYRLA DEL PILAR NICANDRO, RTC BR. 217, QUEZON CITY :
[A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2226-RTJ] : September 11, 2007]
CARMEN P. EDAÑO V. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, RTC BRANCH 87, QUEZON CITY AND STENOGRAPHER MYRLA DEL PILAR NICANDRO, RTC BR. 217, QUEZON CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 11, 2007
"A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2226-RTJ] (CARMEN P. EDA�O V. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, RTC Branch 87, Quezon City and STENOGRAPHER MYRLA DEL PILAR NICANDRO, RTC Br. 217, Quezon City) - On July 26, 2007, the Court rendered a Decision dismissing respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala from the service for gross insubordination and gross misconduct unbefitting a member of the judiciary, with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which she may be entitled.
In her letter dated August 6, 2007 which is treated as a motion for reconsideration, respondent Asdala pleads for mercy and compassion and prays that she be given one last chance to redeem herself within the hallowed halls of this institution and that the harshness of her dismissal be tempered by granting her some of the benefits and leave credits she had earned in her almost twenty-five (25) years in government service.
Under Sections 8 and 11 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on the Discipline of Justices and Judges,[1] gross misconduct is classified as a serious charge which carries with it a penalty of dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, provided that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits. The request for the exclusion of accrued leave credits from those benefits subject of forfeiture is in accord with several administrative cases involving judges.[2] In line with these cases, the respondent is entitled to the leave credits that she has earned during the period of her government service.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court Resolves to DENY respondent's motion for reconsideration with FINALITY. The Court further Resolves to GRANT respondent Asdala, the money equivalent of all her accrued sick and vacation leaves. The dispositive portion of our Decision dated July 26, 2007 is MODIFIED accordingly."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
"A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2226-RTJ] (CARMEN P. EDA�O V. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, RTC Branch 87, Quezon City and STENOGRAPHER MYRLA DEL PILAR NICANDRO, RTC Br. 217, Quezon City) - On July 26, 2007, the Court rendered a Decision dismissing respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala from the service for gross insubordination and gross misconduct unbefitting a member of the judiciary, with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which she may be entitled.
In her letter dated August 6, 2007 which is treated as a motion for reconsideration, respondent Asdala pleads for mercy and compassion and prays that she be given one last chance to redeem herself within the hallowed halls of this institution and that the harshness of her dismissal be tempered by granting her some of the benefits and leave credits she had earned in her almost twenty-five (25) years in government service.
Under Sections 8 and 11 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on the Discipline of Justices and Judges,[1] gross misconduct is classified as a serious charge which carries with it a penalty of dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, provided that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits. The request for the exclusion of accrued leave credits from those benefits subject of forfeiture is in accord with several administrative cases involving judges.[2] In line with these cases, the respondent is entitled to the leave credits that she has earned during the period of her government service.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court Resolves to DENY respondent's motion for reconsideration with FINALITY. The Court further Resolves to GRANT respondent Asdala, the money equivalent of all her accrued sick and vacation leaves. The dispositive portion of our Decision dated July 26, 2007 is MODIFIED accordingly."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Which took effect on October 1, 2001.
[2] OCA v. Hon. Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-06-1661, January 25, 2007; Resngit-Marquez v. Llamas, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-02-1708, July 23, 2002; Agarao v. Parentela, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1561 & Anonymous v. Parentela, Jr., et al., A.M. No. RTJ-01-1659, Nov. 21, 2001.
