G.R. No. RTJ-06-1974 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2226-RTJ). June 27, 2023.
Carmen P. Edaño, Complainant, vs. Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala and Stenographer Myrla del Pilar Nicandro, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a Petition for Judicial Clemency filed by former Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala (Judge Fatima), praying to be entitled to benefits under Republic Act No. 910 following her dismissal from service. The dismissal stemmed from an administrative case filed by Carmen P. Edaño (Carmen) concerning a civil case for support pending before Judge Fatima’s court. Carmen charged Judge Fatima with grave abuse of discretion and conduct unbecoming a judge, and Court Stenographer Myrla del Pilar Nicandro with usurpation of authority and misconduct.
In the underlying civil case, after a pairing judge ordered George Butler (George) to pay support pendente lite, George failed to comply. Judge Fatima found him guilty of indirect contempt, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. However, after a private meeting with George, Judge Fatima cancelled the bench warrant, revoked the imprisonment, and significantly reduced the fine. This private meeting deprived Carmen of her right to be heard. Furthermore, Judge Fatima willfully disregarded a Supreme Court Memorandum by designating Myrla as officer-in-charge instead of the approved designee.
In a Decision dated July 26, 2007, the Supreme Court found Judge Fatima guilty of gross insubordination and gross misconduct. Considering this and her previous infractions in at least four other administrative cases, the Court dismissed her from service with forfeiture of all salaries and benefits. Myrla was suspended. The Court denied Judge Fatima’s subsequent motions for reconsideration but granted the release of the money equivalent of her accrued leave credits, subject to a hold for other pending cases.
Judge Fatima filed her first Petition for Judicial Clemency in 2018, which was denied in 2020. She filed the present second Petition on November 10, 2021, no longer seeking reconsideration of her dismissal but recognizing her mistakes and asking for forgiveness. She narrated the psychological and financial distress following her dismissal, her subsequent engagement in legal practice and community work, her remorse, and her desire for benefits from her 25 years and seven months of government service. The Court referred the petition to a Fact-Finding Commission, which recommended granting clemency and releasing 20% of her retirement benefits. No comment or opposition was filed by the public or the original complainant, Carmen.

ISSUE

Whether or not former Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala should be granted judicial clemency, entitling her to retirement benefits.

RULING

The Petition is PARTIALLY MERITORIOUS. The Supreme Court GRANTED judicial clemency to former Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala but only to the extent of authorizing the release of TWENTY PERCENT (20%) of the retirement benefits she would have been entitled to under Republic Act No. 910, as a compassionate act.
In resolving requests for judicial clemency, the Court applies the guidelines in In re Diaz, which require: (1) proof of remorse and reformation; (2) a sufficient lapse of time from the imposition of the penalty; and (3) a showing that the petitioner has maintained a track record of good conduct and has contributed to the community, among other factors.
The Court found that Judge Fatima satisfied these guidelines:
1. Remorse and Reformation: She categorically admitted her mistakes, expressed regret, and acknowledged she had no one to blame but herself. Her reformation is evidenced by testimonials from reputable organizations (the Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines), her completion of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements, her compliance with the public apology requirement by publishing her petition, and the absence of any administrative case filed against her as a lawyer since her dismissal.
2. Lapse of Time: More than fifteen (15) years have passed since her dismissal in 2007, which is a sufficient period to demonstrate reformation.
3. Subsequent Conduct and Community Contribution: After her dismissal, she engaged in legal practice, worked as a part-time lecturer, maintained her professional affiliations, and provided pro bono assistance to victims of abuse and poverty. No opposition was filed against her petition.
However, the Court emphasized that judicial clemency is an act of mercy, not a right. While her dismissal with forfeiture of benefits stands as the correct penalty for her serious infractions, the Court, in the exercise of its compassion, deemed it proper to grant partial clemency by allowing a portion of her retirement benefits. This balances the need to uphold judicial discipline with the extraordinary grace of clemency for a remorseful individual who has shown genuine reformation over a significant period.