Melencio P. Manansala III, complainant, vs. Judge Fatima G. Asdala, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Br. 87, Quezon City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Melencio P. Manansala III alleged that on February 1, 2003, after the arrest of Winfried Herbst for malicious mischief, respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala telephoned the police station commander to request Herbst’s release to her custody. The request was denied. Subsequently, on February 3, 2003, the sheriff from respondent’s court, accompanied by policemen, went to complainant’s building to retrieve Herbst’s parked car. Complainant later discussed these incidents on a television program. Respondent subsequently filed a libel complaint against complainant and his lawyer. The Office of the Ombudsman referred the administrative complaint against the judge to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In her defense, respondent claimed she merely gave legal advice to Herbst, a friend’s benefactor, over the phone regarding inquest procedures. She denied requesting the detainee’s release, stating she only inquired about the charge and inquest schedule. Regarding the car, she asserted that her sheriff voluntarily assisted Herbst’s cousin in securing the vehicle, using the sheriff’s personal initiative and connections with local police, and that she had no personal interest in the matter.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala is administratively liable for her actions concerning the detention of Winfried Herbst and the retrieval of his vehicle.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court found her version of events improbable. Her telephone call to the police station, where she identified herself and inquired about the details of Herbst’s case, constituted an improper intervention in a pending police matter. A judge must avoid any appearance of impropriety and should not use the prestige of the judicial office to advance the personal interests of others. Her actions demonstrated a failure to observe the high standards of conduct required by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Furthermore, the act of directing her court sheriff, who then enlisted police assistance, to retrieve Herbst’s car from a private compound was a clear misuse of her office’s authority and resources for a private purpose. The Court rejected her claim that the sheriff acted on his own, noting that the sheriff’s actions were undertaken under the color of her official position. This act exploited her judicial stature to achieve a private end. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) with a stern warning.
