Case Digest (A.M. No. P-95-1146)
Facts:
The case involves Judge Artemio R. Alivia, the Presiding Judge of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cauayan, Isabela, as the complainant against Elena P. Nieto, a Stenographer III in the same court. The events leading to the complaint began on July 25, 1994, during the hearings of Criminal Case No. 19-392 and Criminal Case No. 19-393, where the prosecution presented Ernesto Guiuo as a witness. Nieto was responsible for taking down the witness's testimony. On November 2, 1994, Nieto reported to Judge Alivia that she had lost her stenographic notes of Ernesto's testimony. In her letter, she explained that she had taken the notes home on September 7, 1994, to transcribe them immediately. However, upon arriving at the office the next day, she discovered that her bag, containing the notes, was missing. Despite her efforts, including broadcasting the loss on local radio, she was unable to recover the bag or the notes.
On November 8, 1994, Judge Alivia requir...
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-95-1146)
Facts:
Incident Leading to the Complaint:
- On 25 July 1994, during the hearing of Criminal Case Nos. 19-392 and 19-393 before Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cauayan, Isabela, the prosecution presented witness Ernesto Guiuo. Respondent Elena P. Nieto, a Stenographer III, was on duty and took down the testimony.
- On 2 November 1994, Nieto reported to Judge Artemio Alivia, the Presiding Judge, that she had lost the stenographic notes of Guiuo's testimony. She explained in her affidavit that she had brought the notes home on 7 September 1994 to transcribe them "immediately." The following day, while traveling to the office, she lost her bag containing the notes. Despite efforts to recover them, including broadcasting the loss on a local radio station, the notes were not found.
Judge Alivia's Response:
- On 8 November 1994, Judge Alivia required Nieto to explain within 72 hours why she should not be recommended for dismissal for:
(a) Violating Supreme Court Circular No. 24-90, which requires stenographers to attach their notes to the case record.
(b) Bringing home the stenographic notes without prior court permission. - In her explanation dated 10 November 1994, Nieto reiterated the circumstances of the loss and claimed that she was unaware of the prohibition against bringing notes home. She also argued that the Judge and prosecutor had taken notes of Guiuo's testimony, and that retaking testimony is common in such cases.
- On 8 November 1994, Judge Alivia required Nieto to explain within 72 hours why she should not be recommended for dismissal for:
Investigation and Findings:
- Judge Alivia conducted an investigation on 7 March 1995, during which Nieto testified.
- On 13 March 1995, Judge Alivia submitted a report to the Office of the Court Administrator, recommending action against Nieto due to the seriousness of the offense. He noted that Guiuo had recanted his testimony on 24 August 1994, making it impossible to retake his testimony.
Office of the Court Administrator's Evaluation:
- The Office of the Court Administrator found that Nieto violated Circular No. 24-90 by failing to transcribe and attach the notes to the case record within 20 days. She also delayed reporting the loss by almost two months.
- It recommended a three-month suspension without pay for neglect of duty, with a stern warning against future violations.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Violation of Circular No. 24-90 and Section 17, Rule 136:
- Stenographers are required to transcribe and attach their notes to the case record within 20 days of taking them. Nieto failed to comply with this requirement, delaying transcription for 44 days.
- Section 17, Rule 136 mandates that stenographic notes be delivered to the clerk of court immediately after each session. Nieto violated this rule by bringing the notes home without permission.
Negligence and Infidelity in Custody of Documents:
- Nieto's claim that she was unaware of the prohibition against bringing notes home was inexcusable. As a court employee, she was expected to know and comply with court regulations.
- Her failure to immediately report the loss of the notes and her delay in seeking assistance demonstrated gross negligence.
Public Accountability and Trust:
- The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust. Court employees must uphold the highest standards of responsibility, integrity, and efficiency.
- Nieto's actions undermined public confidence in the judiciary and violated the principle of accountability.
Appropriate Penalty:
- The Court found the recommended three-month suspension insufficient given the gravity of the violations. A six-month suspension without pay was deemed more appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the infractions.