Case Digest (A.M. No. P-13-3155)
Facts:
Joefil Baguio v. Maria Fe V. Arnejo, A.M. No. P-13-3155 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3530-P), October 21, 2013, First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Complainant Joefil Baguio filed a letter-complaint dated 27 October 2010 alleging that respondent stenographer Maria Fe V. Arnejo willfully and with gross neglect of duty: (1) failed to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 requiring transcription of stenographic notes within 20 days of hearing; (2) did not issue an official receipt for payment of transcript of stenographic notes (TSN); and (3) antedated the TSN Certification dates and submitted official receipts whose dates and amounts were inconsistent with a prior temporary acknowledgement receipt.
Pursuant to the Office of the Court Administrator's (OCA) recommendation, the matter was referred to Executive Judge Silvestre Maamo, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, for investigation, report and recommendation. Judge Maamo conducted an investigation, but after complainant failed to appear for presentation of his evidence on three occasions the case was submitted for resolution based on the available records.
Judge Maamo's Investigation Report established that the TSNs for the challenged hearing dates (27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010) had been transcribed within the 20-day period required by Administrative Circular No. 24-90; that there was no hearing on 30 September 2010; and that a different stenographer was on duty that date. As to the financial allegations, the report found that respondent had requested P500 from complainant on 27 May 2010 (allegedly as advance for printer ink); respondent admitted issuing an acknowledgement receipt dated 22 July 2011 for P240 received on 27 May 2010; the actual official remittances to the Clerk of Court were dated 19 and 23 December 2010 (after the complaint was filed); respondent failed to prove regular remittances per OCA Circular No. 83-2010; and respondent admitted that she habitually antedated the Certification date on TSNs.
The investigating judge recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violating the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13 SC) and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713) by asking for advances, issuing acknowledgement receipts for TSN payments, and failing to remit fees promptly to the Judiciary Development Fund. The OCA evaluated the report and concurred in its findings, concluding likewise that respondent complied with Circular No. 24-90 as to transcription time but violated Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court by accepting payment and failing to remit as required.
The case was then resolved by the Court (First Division) on administrative review of the OCA findings and recommendations.
Issues:
- Did respondent violate Administrative Circular No. 24-90 by failing to transcribe the TSNs within twenty (20) days of the hearings?
- Did respondent unlawfully accept payment for TSNs, issue acknowledgement receipts, and fail to remit the fees promptly, thereby violating Section 11, Rule 141 and the ethical rules applicable to court personnel?
- If respondent is guilty of an offense, what penalty is appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)