A.M. No. P-13-3155 - Baguio vs. Arnejo

A letter-complaint dated 27 October 2010 was filed by complainant Joefil Baguio against respondent Maria Fe V. Arnejo, a stenographer.
The complaint charged respondent with willful gross neglect of duties on the following grounds:

Noncompliance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which requires the transcription of stenographic notes (TSN) within 20 days from the hearing date.
Failure to issue an official receipt (OR) for the payment made for the TSN.
Antedating the Certification date on the TSN for the 27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010 hearings, as evidenced by discrepancies between the dates on the temporary acknowledgement receipts and the temporary acknowledgement receipt previously issued.

Upon recommendation from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the complaint was referred to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City for investigation.
Executive Judge Silvestre Maamo, Jr. conducted an investigation.

Despite three consecutive failures of the complainant to appear and present evidence personally, the investigation proceeded based on the documents and records available.
The Investigation Report established that the TSN pertaining to the 27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010 hearings had been transcribed within the mandated 20-day period, thus negating the allegation related to this particular requirement.
It was clarified that there was no hearing held on 30 September 2010, as a Motion to Postpone had been filed and another stenographer was on duty on that date.

On 27 May 2010, respondent requested an advance of P500 from the complainant to purchase printer ink, which was treated as an advance payment.
An acknowledgment receipt for P240 was issued by respondent on 22 July 2011, acknowledging the advance received for the TSN.
The actual remittance for the TSN fee corresponding to the 27 May and 8 September 2010 hearings was subsequently made on 23 December 2010 and 19 December 2010, respectively—after the filing of the complaint.
Respondent was unable to prove regular remittance of the collected fees to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the RTC-Cebu City, as required by OCA Circular No. 83-2010.

Respondent admitted that the Certification date in the TSN must coincide with the actual hearing date to avoid confusion; however, she practiced antedating as a matter of convenience.
The investigating judge, backed by the OCA’s evaluation, concluded that respondent’s practices violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and the Code of Ethics for Government Officials and Employees.
The investigation underscored the importance of immediate remittance of judicial fees to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) on the day of receipt, which the respondent failed to observe.

Whether respondent Maria Fe V. Arnejo complied with the Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 regarding the timely transcription of TSNs.
Whether the issuance of acknowledgment receipts as practiced by the respondent constitutes a violation of Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates that all payments for TSNs be made directly to the Clerk of Court.
Whether the respondent’s practice of asking for advance payments and delaying the remittance of collected fees to the appropriate office violates the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and the Code of Ethics for Government Officials and Employees.
Whether the antedating of the Certification date in the TSN, even if done as a matter of practice to align with hearing dates, undermines the integrity and proper recording of judicial proceedings.