G.R. No. 212719 - Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison vs. De Lima

Complainant: Cenon R. Alfonso, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff corporation in Civil Case No. 67654.
Respondent: Armando B. Ignacio, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 161.

On August 9, 2000, during Civil Case No. 67654 (Doctors of the New Millenium Holdings, Inc. v. Peopleas Trans-East Asia Insurance Corp., et al.), Cenon R. Alfonso testified as the first witness.
Armando B. Ignacio was responsible for taking the stenographic notes (transcript) of the proceedings.

The transcript was delayed in being furnished to the complainant’s office, arriving only about two days before the next hearing scheduled for October 26, 2000.
On examination, significant discrepancies were noted, including:

The complainant alleged that these discrepancies pointed to a deliberate intent by the respondent to distort his testimony.

Upon noticing the errors, the complainant immediately consulted his lawyer, Atty. Norberto Ortiz Perez, who concurred on the suspicious nature of the transcript errors.
On October 26, 2000, before the morning hearing:

The complainant’s counsel confronted Armando B. Ignacio regarding the discrepancies.
The presiding judge, Hon. Alicia P. Marino-Co, summoned the respondent and ordered a re-taking of the testimony.
The judge also issued an order for the respondent to use a tape recorder during the re-testimony to ensure accuracy.

Being the stenographer during the August 9, 2000 hearing and having finished the transcription five days before the subsequent hearing.
That a representative of the plaintiff had already secured a copy of the transcript on August 9, 2000.

He further admitted a previous administrative charge leading to a fine and asserted that he had since improved his diligence.
The respondent expressed willingness to read the transcript publicly if required, attaching a duplicate copy as part of his Comment.

In its Report dated January 7, 2002, the OCA found the complaint against the respondent meritorious.
The OCA recommended that, due to this being the respondent’s second offense:

A stiffer penalty should be imposed, specifically a suspension for three (3) months without pay.
A warning was given that similar offenses in the future would face more severe penalties.

The OCA noted that the use of a tape recorder would have prevented the transcription errors by allowing for later confirmation of the recorded testimony.

The Court emphasized that a transcript must be a faithful and exact record of the proceedings.
While administrative circulars (notably Administrative Circular No. 24-90) direct compliance to transcription standards, the use of a tape recorder is not mandated but is deemed a useful precaution.

The complainant’s claim was based primarily on his own observations and allegations without substantial independent corroborative evidence.
There was a noted delay in the filing of the administrative complaint (filed on April 20, 2001) despite the early receipt (October 26, 2000) of the allegedly flawed transcript, which was considered against the complainant’s claim.
Testimony from the opposing counsel during the hearing supported the accuracy of the transcript, further weakening the allegation of gross negligence.

Whether the alleged discrepancies in the transcript of the stenographic notes amount to gross negligence and intentional distortion of testimony.
Whether the respondent’s failure to utilize a tape recorder—despite its suggested utility—constitutes a breach of duty as required by the established administrative guidelines.
Whether the complainant’s delay in filing the administrative complaint adversely affects the credibility and merit of the charges lodged against the respondent.
Whether the administrative evidence presented is sufficient to prove, beyond mere allegations and conjectures, that the respondent deliberately distorted the testimony.