THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-14-3228. July 9, 2014.]
DARWIN C. NUEZCA, petitioner, vs. MERLITA R. VERCELES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 9, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-14-3228 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3536-P] (Darwin C. Nuezca vs. Merlita R. Verceles, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan). — The Court resolves to:
(1) RE-DOCKET the instant administrative case as a regular administrative matter; and
(2) NOTE the Memorandum dated March 17, 2014 of the Office of the Court Administrator.
For resolution is the administrative complaint filed by Darwin C. Nuezca against Merlita R. Verceles, Stenographer III, RTC Br. 49, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan (RTC), for alleged incompetence and negligence in view of her failure to promptly submit the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) pertaining to complainant's criminal case.
On March 23, 2004, complainant was criminally charged with forcible abduction with rape, docketed as CRIM. CS. No. U-13140 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Darwin Nuezca," and eventually raffled to and tried by the RTC. According to the complainant, the case would have long been decided had it not been for the respondent's repeated delay or failure to submit the TSNs of the witnesses' testimonies. This is despite the fact that the RTC, on September 26, 2006, issued an Order 1 in the following wise:
WHEREFORE, the stenographers who took down the proceedings in this case are hereby ordered to submit to the Court their transcribed notes of the evidence for the prosecution within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of this Order and thereafter the demurrer is deemed submitted for resolution.
As a result of the omission on the part of the respondent, the RTC had to resort to retaking the testimonies of the witnesses, thereby prolonging the resolution of the case and, consequently, the detention of herein complainant. As per the Order 2 of the RTC dated September 1, 2009:
Considering the protracted unavailability of the transcripts of stenographic notes, thereby rendering the Court incapable of deciding the above-captioned case, the Court hereby orders the retaking of the testimony of the witnesses whose declarations were earlier taken.
Similarly, the RTC, on October 12, 2009, issued an Order 3 in the same, tenor.
Alleging the foregoing events, complainant, on August 9, 2010, filed the Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which, by a 1st Indorsement 4 dated November 9, 2010, then ordered the respondent to comment on the complaint within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. However, despite receipt of the 1st Indorsement, respondent failed to file the required comment. Thus, the OCA reiterated its directive in its 1st Tracer sent to respondent, and allowed the latter five (5) days from receipt thereof to file the necessary pleading. 5
On August 23, 2011, the respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Comment on the Complaint, 6 praying for an additional fifteen (15) days within which to file her comment. The OCA acceded to respondent's request and granted her the fifteen-day extension counted from September 26, 2011. 7SACTIH
On October 25, 2011, respondent once again prayed 8 for and was granted another fifteen-day leeway but with a caveat that no further extension shall be given. 9
To date, respondent has not submitted her comment. As a result, the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA, directed respondent (1) to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with for her failure to submit her comment, and (2) to submit the necessary comment within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from notice. 10 The Court's benevolence, however, was for naught since respondent, once again, failed to comply.
In view of the facts, the OCA recommended that the administrative case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be found guilty of gross neglect of duty, incompetence, and insubordination, and be suspended for a period of one (1) year without pay.
We resolve to adopt the recommendation of the OCA.
Respondent is Guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. On the other hand, gross neglect of duty is characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty. 11
In the current controversy, the OCA is correct in its observation that as a stenographer, respondent Verceles should have known that the performance of her duty is essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice. 12 Pertinent herein is Administrative Circular No. 24-90 13 issued by this Court on July 12, 1990, which reads:
In order to minimize delay in the adjudication of pending cases, the following revised rules on transcription of stenographic notes are hereby promulgated:
1. Clerks of Court and stenographers are enjoined to faithfully comply with Rule 136, Section 17, par. 1, Rules of Court, which is quoted hereunder:
Sec. 17. Stenographers — It shall be the duty of the stenographer who has attended a session of Court either in the morning or in the afternoon, to deliver to the Clerk of Court, immediately at the close of such morning or afternoon session, all the notes he has taken, to be attached to the record of the case, and it shall likewise be the duty of the Clerk to demand that the stenographer comply with said duty. The Clerk of Court shall stamp the date on which notes are received by him. When such notes are transcribed, the transcript shall be delivered to the Clerk, duly initialed on each page thereof, to be attached to the records of the case.
2. (a) All stenographers are required to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. The attaching may be done by putting all said transcripts in a separate folder or envelope, which will then be joined to the record of the case. (emphasis added)
Clearly, respondent was remiss in her obligations when she failed to comply with the afore-quoted provision of the Administrative Circular. Moreover, she did not abide by the rules even in the face of the countless reminders and opportunities accorded her by the Court, acting through the RTC and the OCA, to rectify her errors. Fundamental is the tenet that public office is a public trust and respondent, without a doubt, violated this trust by her failure to fulfil her duty as a stenographer. Hence, respondent can be held administratively liable for gross neglect of duty that carries with it the penalty of dismissal from service. 14
Respondent is guilty of insubordination
Moreover, it bears stressing that aside from the charges against her as Court Stenographer, respondent can likewise be held liable for insubordination. As properly appreciated by the OCA:
[A]ll directives coming from the Court Administrator and his deputies are issued in the exercise of this Court's administrative supervision of trial courts and their personnel, hence, should be respected. These directives are not mere requests but should be complied with promptly and completely. Clearly, respondent's indefensible disregard of the orders of the OCA, for her to comment on the complaint and to explain her infractions, shows her disrespect for and contempt, not just for the OCA, but also for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA. Her indifference to, and disregard of, the directives issued to her clearly constituted insubordination. TSEHcA
The significance of a court personnel's compliance with the directives of the RTC judge, the Court, and the OCA, as the Court's disciplinary arm, cannot be gainsaid. Being the agency exclusively vested by the Constitution with administrative supervision over all courts, this Court can hardly discharge its constitutional mandate or overseeing judges and court personnel and taking proper administrative sanction against them if the judge or personnel concerned does not even recognize its administrative authority. 15 Thus, the Court cannot take lightly the constant refusal of the respondent to comply with the repeated instructions to her (1) to submit the necessary TSNs, (2) to submit her comment to the complaint, and (3) to show cause why she should not be held administratively liable for her inactions. These factual considerations, as properly appreciated by the OCA, amount to insubordination attributable to the respondent, which infraction is categorized as a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
On the proper penalty to be imposed
As a matter of sound practice, the penalty for the most serious charge should be imposed on respondent, which in this case is the grave offense of gross neglect of duty punishable by dismissal. Nevertheless, while We are duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. 16 Thus, in several administrative cases, We have retrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating facts. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. 17 As applied in the case at bar, the fact that respondent has not been administratively charged prior to this case can and should be taken as a mitigating circumstance in her favor.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Merlita Verceles GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and insubordination. She is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year without pay, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in the 201 file of respondent Merlita R. Verceles. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.) SaCIDT
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 5.
2. Id. at 8.
3. Id. at 9.
4. Id. at 10.
5. Id. at 11.
6. Id. at 12.
7. Id. at 13.
8. Id. at 14.
9. Id. at 15.
10. Id. at 18.
11. Court of Appeals v. Manabat, Jr., A.M. No. CA-11-24-P, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 159, 165.
12. Rollo, p. 22.
13. Revised Rules on Transcription of Stenographic Notes and Their Transmission to Appellate Court.
14. Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission's Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1994, or the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
15. Mendoza v. Tablizo, A.M. No. P-08-2553, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 381, 389-390.
16. Cabigao v. Nery, A.M. No. P-13-3153, October 14, 2013.
17. Office of the Court Administrator v. Araya, A.M. No. P-12-3053, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 124, 133.