Facts:

This case, identified as AM-P-05-2074 (formerly OCA I.P.I NO. 04-1911-P), involves a complaint against Roslyn P. Amores, a court stenographer at Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 3 in Butuan City, filed by several complainants: Pablo Antimaro, Dinda Antimaro, Anita Odlime, Virgencita Desiata, Ester Nadera, Judith German, Lito Antimaro, and Quirilico Antimaro. On December 23, 2003, during a hearing for Special Civil Case No. 1190, "Roman Catholic Church of Butuan City, et al. v. Dinda Antimaro, et al., " which involved requests for injunctive relief, Amores failed to provide timely transcriptions of her stenographic notes. The complainants initially sought a certified true copy of the TSN (Transcription Stenographic Notes) from Amores immediately following the hearing. However, Amores claimed to be occupied with other transcriptions and asserted that the TSN required judicial approval before its release. Despite repeated follow-ups and a written request made on January

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Complainants: Pablo Antimaro, Dinda Antimaro, Anita Odlime, Virgencita Desiata, Ester Nadera, Judith German, Lito Antimaro, and Quirilico Antimaro.
• Respondent: Roslyn P. Amores, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Butuan City.
• Subject Matter: An administrative complaint filed against respondent for her failure to promptly transcribe and furnish a certified true copy of the stenographic notes (TSN) of a crucial hearing in Special Civil Case No. 1190.

Incident and Allegations

• On December 23, 2003, during a specially calendared hearing for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), respondent took stenographic notes of the proceedings.
• Complainants, on the instructions of their counsel, immediately requested a certified copy of the TSN following the hearing.
• The request was reiterated during a subsequent hearing held on December 28, 2003, but respondent cited being occupied with transcriptions of other cases.
• Respondent further explained that the TSN required Judge Maclang’s approval for any corrections before release.
• Despite repeated follow-ups, including a written request dated January 19, 2004, and a verbal reminder in early February 2004 (accompanied by a threat to file an administrative complaint), the TSN was not hastily furnished.
• Complainants alleged that respondent’s delay prejudiced their ability to timely file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

Respondent’s Explanation and Circumstances

• Respondent contended that:
• The notes taken on December 23, 2003, were lengthy and required extensive transcription.
• She was preoccupied with transcribing stenographic notes from cases handled in the preceding two weeks, as well as typing intricate court resolutions, orders, and decisions, which were given higher priority.
• Additional points raised by respondent:
• She was not on duty during the December 29, 2003, and January 5, 2004 hearings, thereby limiting her opportunity to provide copies on those dates.
• Judge Maclang had instructed her not to succumb to complaints by insisting that the TSN was no longer urgently required once the TRO was issued.
• Ultimately, her transcription was completed and a copy was furnished on February 17, 2004, although complainants maintained that the copy was only released on February 23, 2004.

Procedural Context and Administrative Mandates

• The administrative complaint charged respondent with gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a penalty of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) based on her failure to comply with established protocols.
• Administrative Circular No. 24-90 clearly mandates that stenographers must transcribe and attach the TSN to the case record within twenty (20) days from the date the notes are taken.

Issue:

Whether respondent’s delay in transcribing and providing the TSN, due to her stated workload and other duties, constitutes valid justification under the administrative requirements.

• Was the excuse of being occupied with other transcriptions and court resolutions a sufficient defense?
• Does awaiting the judge’s approval for corrections mitigate respondent’s responsibility under Administrative Circular No. 24-90?

• Whether the delay in providing the TSN adversely affected the legal process, specifically impacting the complainants’ ability to file a timely petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

• Whether respondent’s actions amount to gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence as charged by the complainants and as required by administrative law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)