Case Digest: MANANSALA III v. JUDGE ASDALA

MELENCIO P. MANANSALA III v. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA

391 SCRA 673 (2005)

In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary to hold a respondent liable for the charge is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Winfried Herbst was detained by the police for breaking the glass wall in the office of Melencio P. Manansala III. After detaining Herbst, complainant claims that respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala called the command of the station Atty. Joel Coronel, trying to influence him to release Herbst as he was Judge Asdala’s close friend. Later on, Asdala instructed sheriff Mark Cabigao and two policemen to request that the car of Herbst be turned over to their custody.

Manansala filed a complaint-affidavit against Judge Asdala charging her with violation of Section 3(a) of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices (R.A. 3019) for allegedly using her position in influencing a public officer. Furthermore, she is allegedly been using a government employee for private means when she sent sheriff Cabigao and two policemen to claim Herbst’s car. Judge Asdala denies the claims stating that she never spoke with Atty. Coronel but with a certain Maceren. She alleged that the sheriff was ―all too willing to help.‖ Judge Asdala further averred that all charges against her were a form of payback for filing libel charges against Manansala for allegedly defaming her in a television show.

After thorough investigation of the witnesses, the Court arrived to the conclusion that Respondent Judge’s arguments does not suffice and she was guilty of Gross Misconduct.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Respondent Judge abused her authority and committed an act of gross misconduct

HELD:

In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary to hold a respondent liable for the charge is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

In the case at bar, Judge Asdala denies having talked to Atty. Coronel. She admits though that she talked to one Maceren who, by her claim, butted in during her phone conversation with Herbst. She proffers, however, that when she conversed with Maceren, she identified herself as Mrs. Asdala and merely asked him if a complaint had been filed against Herbst, for what offense, and when the case would be inquested.

Judge Asdala’s plain denial of the charge of influencing does not suffice to discredit the straightforward claim of Atty. Coronel, however.

Moreover, Asdala’s vacillating version regarding the phone conversation with the police officer flaws her credibility. In her Comment to the complaint at bar, she stated that during her phone conversation with Herbst, “she heard someone in the background ask Herbst who he was in conversation with” and “[b]efore she knew it, someone other tha[n] Herbst was on the line and he introduced himself as some police officer whose name [she] cannot recall and asked what is it [she] wanted to know and who [she was] xxx.” And during her interview on air by Atty. Mauricio, she likewise admitted having talked to a police officer in Station 10.