SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-22-047. October 6, 2021.][Formerly A.M. No. 11-4-71-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. MS. CHONA LIEZL L. FLORES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-22-047 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Ms. Chona Liezl L. Flores, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City)[formerly A.M. No. 11-4-71-RTC](Re: Memorandum dated March 1, 2011 of Judge Andres B. Soriano, Acting Presiding Judge, Branch 144, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, issued to Chona Liezl 1 L. Flores, Court Stenographer III, same court). — On March 1, 2011, Judge Andres B. Soriano (Judge Soriano) issued a Memorandum 2 addressed to Chona Liezl Flores (Flores), Court Stenographer III of the same court, directing the latter to explain in writing within five (5) days, the following:
a) Absence for 16 consecutive working days without prior leave of absence;
b) Complaints and reports regarding delayed transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) pertaining to Civil Case No. 09-724 (Rivera v. Rivera), Criminal Case Nos. 06-148-54 and 06-155-58 (People v. Nakagawa, et al.) and Criminal Case No. 10-1707-11 (People v. Sisante); and
c) Failure to report to duty as stenographer during the days assigned to her particularly December 15, 2010 and February 21, 2011. 3
Subsequently, Memoranda dated March 9 4 and 15, 5 2011 were issued by Atty. Joan G. Bolina-Santillan (Atty. Bolina-Santillan), Clerk of Court also of the same court, pertaining to the numerous complaints from litigants regarding the delayed transcription and release of the TSNs assigned to Flores. Flares was directed to submit transcription within five (5) days or to explain in writing why she should not be cited for insubordination in the event that she fails to do as directed.
In compliance to the Memorandum of Judge Soriano, Flores submitted a Letter 6 dated March 14, 2011 explaining that her sixteen (16) successive absences and her failure to submit transcription of TSN's on time was because she had to attend to her granddaughter and youngest daughter who were confined at the hospital for measles. As a single parent, she explained that she is the only one available to take care of her daughter and to bring her for hospital check-ups. 7
She also seeks understanding for her failure to transcribe the mentioned TSNs stating that if it was not because of her daughter's sickness, she could have submitted them on time. 8 With respect to her failure to report for duty on December 15, 2010 and February 21, 2011, she reasoned out that December 15 is the birthday of her son and that of her late husband. While on February 21, 2011, she had to bring her daughter to the hospital who was suffering from intense pain caused by swollen eardrums. 9
To address the Memoranda issued by Atty. Bolina-Santillan, a Letter 10 dated March 15, 2011 was submitted by Flores explaining that the delay in the submission of the required TSNs was because the central processing unit (CPU) of the computer she was using at the office was already damaged and was affected by a virus. Efforts to have it repaired proved unsuccessful, hence she just decided to buy a second hand CPU. She claimed that there was no intention to disobey the directives of Judge Soriano and Atty. Bolina-Santillan because she was ready to submit her written explanation as well as the required TSNs when she received the Memorandum dated March 15, 2011. 11 She asked for understanding and be allowed to submit the required TSNs together with her written explanation later that day. 12
On September 19, 2011, Atty. Bolina-Santillan reported to Judge Soriano that Flores has officially not been reporting to the office since March 29, 2011. Flores also failed to submit TSNs for numerous cases despite repeated demands. 13
In a Letter 14 dated September 23, 2011, Judge Soriano informed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of Flores' prolonged absences without leave which resulted in a substantial number of untranscribed TSNs. This caused a delay in the resolution of at least three (3) cases. For these, Judge Soriano recommended for Flores to be terminated from office without prejudice to other appropriate actions.
It is noted however that in another administrative case docketed as A.M. No. 12-4-67-RTC, 15 Flores has already been dropped from the rolls effective December 1, 2010 for her absences without official leave (AWOL). CAIHTE
The recommendation of the
In the Report and Recommendation 16 dated November 16, 2012, the OCA submitted the following recommendations:
(1) the matter be docketed as a regular administrative matter against Ms. Chona Liezel L. Florets, former Stenographer III, Branch 144, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, for simple neglect of duty;
(2) Ms. Flores be found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos be imposed upon her to be deducted from whatever amount she may still be entitled to;
(3) the Office of Administrative Services and the Financial Management Office both in the Office of the Court Administrator be DIRECTED to compute the leave credits of Ms. Flores and their money value, and DEDUCT the said line, dispensing with the documentary requirements; and
(4) Ms. Flores be INFORMED of the outcome of the instant administrative matter at the address appearing in her 201 life, that is, at 319 Duhat St., Comembo Makati.
The OCA found that while Flores was not formally charged, she was amply notified through the various memoranda issued to her, which directed her to explain in writing, thus affording her the opportunity to air her side. 17 However, the OCA considered Flores' explanation as mere excuses and not adequate justification for her to be remiss of her duties. After considering her explanation, Flores was adjudged liable for Simple Neglect of Duty which has the corresponding penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months on the first offense. Given however that Flores has been already dropped from the rolls as of December 1, 2010, the OCA recommended a fine of P10,000.00. 18
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts and approves the OCA's recommendation finding it to be in accord with the law, jurisprudence, and the facts of the case.
Court personnel are mandated to perform their duties properly and with diligence. 19 As part of the judicial machinery, every court personnel is obligated to perform their tasks with the optimum degree of professionalism. The wheel of justice will run smoothly if every task given to every court employee is performed promptly and diligently, no matter how servile these tasks are perceived to be.
Administrative Circular No. 24-90 20 requires all stenographers "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 other words, stenographers are given twenty (20) days from the taking of the notes to deliver their transcription to the clerk of court. 21 Flores' repeated failure to timely transcribed constitute Simple 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." 22 Classified as a less grave offense, Simple Neglect of Duty is punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. 23
We also take note of Flores' unauthorized absences. However, this has already been the subject of A.M. No. 12-4-67-RTC that resulted in her dropping from the rolls effective December 1, 2010. 24 Thus, the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed. In lieu thereof, a penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00 is justified under the circumstances. DETACa
As stressed in Judge Baguio v. Lacuna: 25
[A] court stenographer performs a function essential to the prompt and fair administration of justice. 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. All public officers are accountable to the people at all time and must perform their duties and responsibilities with utmost efficiency and competence. As administration of justice is a sacred task, the Court condemns any omission or act which would erode public faith in the judiciary. A public office is a public trust, and a court stenographer, without doubt, violates this trust by failing to fulfill his duties. (Citations omitted)
This Court understands that there are times our family obligations come in conflict with the time we needed to devote to our official duties. However, this is not a valid excuse for absenteeism and to fail from performing one's duties. Needless to state that one should strike a balance between the personal and the professional. Otherwise, every court employee charged with absenteeism and neglect of duty will proffer the same excuse to escape punishment, to the prejudice of public service 26 causing litigation delays that ultimately defeat the ends of justice.
WHEREFORE, the case is RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter. Chona Liezl L. Flores, Court Stenographer III, Branch 144, Regional Trial Court, Makati City is adjudged GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty. A fine of P10,000.00 is imposed upon her to be deducted from her accrued leave benefits.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to Chona Liezl L. Flores at the address appearing in her 201 file.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Spelled as Liezel in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, p. 2.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 11.
5.Id. at 12.
6.Id. at 16-18.
7.Id. at 16.
8.Id. at 17.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 13-14.
11.Id. at 13.
12.Id. at 14.
13.Id. at 76. See Letter dated September 19, 2011.
14.Id. at 75.
15.Id. at 108.
16.Id. at 110-115.
17.Id. at 113.
18.Id. at 113-114.
19. Section 1, Canon IV, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, May 15, 2004.
20. Dated July 12, 1992, Revised Rules on Transcription of Stenographic Notes and Their Transmission to Appellate Court, Section 17, 2 (a).
21.Antimaro v. Amores, 507 Phil. 1, 5 (2005).
22.Court of Appeals by: COC. Marigomen v. Manabat, Jr., 676 Phil. 157, 164 (2011).
23. UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, RULE IV, SECTION 52 (B).
24.Rollo, p. 108.
25. 811 Phil. 13, 18 (2017), citing Seangio v. Parce, 553 Phil. 697, 709-710 (2007), Banzon v. Hechanova, 574 Phil. 13, 18-19 (2008), Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, 540 Phil. 343, 348 (2006).
26.Antimaro v. Amores, supra note 20.