THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-4012. September 28, 2020.][Formerly A.M. No. 06-10-627-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner,vs. STENOGRAPHER MARIVELLE CORDERO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, KABANKALAN CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 28, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-4012 [formerly A.M. No. 06-10-627-RTC (Re: Repeated Failure of Stenographer Marivelle Cordero, Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, to submit the lacking transcript of stenographic notes dated August 1, 2001)] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Stenographer Marivelle Cordero, Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Kabankalan City). — The instant administrative matter stems from a Resolution 1 dated September 20, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01049, entitled "Heirs of the Late Fortunato Galena, rep. by Demetrio Galena v. Corazon Servano, et al.," recommending that the salary and other benefits of respondent Marivelle Cordero (Cordero), former Stenographer of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City, Branch 61, be withheld for her repeated failure to submit the lacking Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated August 1, 2001. 2
In a Resolution 3 dated January 17, 2007, the Court, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), withheld the payment of retirement benefits of respondent Cordero, who compulsorily retired from the judiciary effective November 5, 2001, until her compliance with the directive to submit the required TSN in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01049. In several instances, the Court reiterated its directive to respondent Cordero, but the latter failed to comply. Accordingly, in a Resolution 4 dated January 11, 2016, a fine in the amount of P1,000.00, which was subsequently increased to P2,000.00, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if the fine was not paid within the prescribed period, was imposed upon respondent. The Court also warned her that she would be arrested and detained by the National Bureau of Investigation should she fail to submit the required TSN. 5
A copy of the Resolution dated January 11, 2016 was sent to former Stenographer Cordero of the RTC of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 61, but was returned unserved with a notation "RTS, Retired." The Court, in its Resolution 6 dated July 30, 2018, directed the Branch Clerk of the same court to facilitate the service of the copy of the Resolution dated January 11, 2016 on Cordero and to submit a status report on whether the latter has submitted the TSN dated August 1, 2001 in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01049, within 10 days from receipt of notice. 7
In a Letter 8 dated November 29, 2018, respondent Cordero informed the Court that she already compulsorily retired from the service effective November 5, 2001. Likewise, Branch Clerk Atty. Jufran A. Gamboa (Atty. Gamboa), in compliance with the Court's directive, wrote a Letter 9 dated December 6, 2018 stating that respondent Cordero already filed her reply to the Resolution dated January 11, 2016 and that the latter, being now 82 years old, "could no longer submit the required stenographic notes for the reason that she will have a hard time recalling where she kept the records." 10
In a Resolution 11 dated June 19, 2019, this Court referred the letter of Atty. Gamboa to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
Report of the Office of the Court Administrator
In a Memorandum 12 dated August 29, 2019, the OCA found that evidently Cordero was less than diligent in the performance of her official duties as a court stenographer. She was unable to strictly comply with Administrative Circular No. 24-90 that prescribes the time for completion and submission of TSNs, which provides that:
xxx xxx xxx
2. (a) All stenographers are required to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcript to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes were taken. The attaching may be done by putting all said transcripts in a separate folder or envelope, which will then be joined to be records of the case.
(b) The stenographer concerned shall accomplish a verified monthly certification as to compliance with this duty.
xxx xxx xxx 13
The OCA further held that the fact that Cordero compulsorily retired from the service on November 5, 2001 cannot exonerate her from liability. It must be stressed that under paragraph 5 14 of Administrative Circular No. 24-90, it is her obligation to submit the pending TSN to the judge or the branch clerk of court within three months prior to her retirement date. The OCA ruled that Cordero neglected to faithfully adhere to the period prescribed by the rules concomitant to her duty to transcribe and submit the stenographic notes assigned to her and that she must be administratively sanctioned for her failure to strictly fulfill her duty as a court stenographer. The OCA, however held that considering that she is already in her advanced age, being an octogenarian, and for humanitarian considerations, it is recommended that a fine in the amount of P25,000.00 be imposed on her, instead of the forfeiture of her retirement benefits and other benefits. Upon verification from the Finance Division, Financial Management Office of the OCA, former Stenographer Cordero has accrued leave credits with a monetary value of P29,002.57, which is sufficient to cover the recommended fine. 15
Thus, the OCA recommended that:
1. The instant administrative matter against former Stenographer Marivelle Cordero, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and
2. Former Stenographer Cordero be found GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty for her repeated failure to comply with the directive of the Court to submit the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated 1 August 2001 in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01049 and be meted the penalty of a FINE in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to be paid out from her accrued leave credits. 16
Ruling of the Court
We adopt the findings of the OCA that Cordero should be held administratively liable with modification as to the fine imposed on her.
The duties of a Stenographer are clearly stated under Section 17, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 17. Stenographer. — It shall be the duty of the stenographer who has attended a session of a 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 records of the case; and it shall likewise be the duty of the Clerk to demand that the stenographer comply with said duty. x x x
Under the foregoing provision, stenographers are enjoined to immediately deliver to the clerk of court all the notes taken during the session of the court, which are to be attached to the record of the case. Corollary thereto, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 requires stenographers to transcribe all TSNs and to attach them to the record of the case within a period of 20 days from the time they were taken, thus:
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.
In the present case, it is beyond question that Cordero failed to comply with the 20-day period to submit the TSN dated August 1, 2001 in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01049 and despite repeated directives from the Court, Cordero repeatedly failed to comply. The OCA recommended that Cordero be found guilty of gross neglect of duty for her repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Court.
In the present case, We agree with the OCA that Cordero should be held administratively liable, but We find that his infraction merely constitutes Simple Neglect of Duty when she failed to submit the lacking TSN dated August 1, 2001. Simple Neglect of Duty has been defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. 17 Cordero was clearly remiss in her duties as stenographer when she failed to submit the August 1, 2001 stenographer notes. However, her repeated failure to comply with the several orders of the Court to submit the subject stenographic notes was not due to her obstinate refusal to submit, but due to her failing memory considering that she is already an octogenarian, an 82-year old, who can no longer remember where the TSN dated August 1, 2001 was kept among the voluminous records. As explained by respondent in her letter, she could no longer submit the required stenographic notes for the reason that she will have a hard time recalling where she kept the records.
It bears stressing that a court stenographer performs a function essential to the prompt and fair administration of justice. 18 The conduct of every person connected with the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. 19 Albeit this Court is solicitous of the plight of court stenographers, in the absence of compelling reasons to justify Cordero's failure to strictly comply with her duty within the prescribed period, she cannot be exonerated. 20 Otherwise, every government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty will always proffer a similar excuse to escape punishment, to the great prejudice of public service. 21
In one case, a court stenographer was administratively charged for failure to transcribe TSNs in nullity and annulment of marriage cases and the TSNs were not attached to their proper case records. She explained that the stenographic notes were not transcribed due to lack of time. The Court found that her excuses were not acceptable as she was clearly remiss in her duties as stenographer and should be held liable for simple neglect of duty. In another case, a stenographer was, likewise, found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty when she failed to comply with the 20-day period in the transcription of the stenographic notes in the pre-trial of a criminal case, and was found guilty of violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90. Similarly, in the present case, respondent Cordero is guilty of simple neglect of duty.
Section 46 (D), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that simple neglect of duty is categorized as a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense. In this case, the penalty of suspension cannot be imposed upon respondent since she has long retired from the service having compulsorily retired effective November 5, 2001. While the Court is duty bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, the Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. Thus, under the circumstances, We find that Cordero's repeated failure to submit the subject stenographic notes constitutes simple neglect of duty. Accordingly, a fine of P10,000.00 be imposed upon respondent, to be deducted from her accrued leave credits.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Marivelle Cordero is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty for her repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Court to submit the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated August 1, 2001 in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01049 and is FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 to be deducted from her accrued leave credits.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 19.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id. at 17-18.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 30-31.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 33.
9.Id. at 38.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 41-44.
13.Id. at 42.
14. 5. No stenographer shall be allowed to resign from the service or allowed to retire optionally within having transcribed all stenographic notes taken by him. A stenographer due for compulsory retirement must submit to the Judge/Clerk all pending untranscribed stenographic notes, three (3) months before retirement date. No terminal leave or retirement pay shall be paid to a stenographer without a verified statement that all his stenographic notes have been transcribed and delivered to the proper court, confirmed by the Executive Judge of the Court concerned. (Emphasis supplied)
15.Rollo, pp. 42-43.
16.Id. at 43-44.
17.Inting v. Borja, 479 Phil. 141 (2004).
18.Baguio v. Lacuna, 811 Phil. 13 (2017).
19.Id.
20.Seangio v. Parce, 553 Phil. 697 (2007).
21.Id.