Facts:

In the case of Atty. Noreen T. Basilio vs. Melinda M. Dinio, the complainant, Atty. Noreen T. Basilio, who served as the Clerk of Court for Branch 129 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Caloocan City, filed a complaint against Melinda M. Dinio, a Court Stenographer III, on August 11, 2008. The complaint arose from an incident that occurred on July 30, 2008, when Atty. Jobert Pahilga visited the court office to request a copy of the stenographic notes related to his case. He paid a total of five hundred pesos (P500.00), with two hundred pesos (P200.00) going to Stenographer Evelyn R. Santander and three hundred pesos (P300.00) to Dinio. Following the payment, Atty. Basilio instructed Dinio to remit a portion of the payment to the Office of the Clerk of Court, as mandated by Section 11, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and Administrative Matter No. 04-2-04-SC. Dinio reacted angrily, asserting that she had no money to remit and that she incurred personal expenses while transcrib...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Complainant: Atty. Noreen T. Basilio, then Clerk of Court, Branch 129, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City.
• Respondent: Melinda M. Dinio, Court Stenographer III, Branch 129, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City.

Background and Transaction

• On July 30, 2008, Atty. Jobert Pahilga visited the office around 9:30 AM.
• He requested copies of stenographic notes from the hearings of his case.
• Payment details:
• A total of P500.00 was paid.

ii. P200.00 was given to Court Stenographer Evelyn R. Santander. iii. P300.00 was given to Court Stenographer Melinda M. Dinio.

Confrontation and Subsequent Developments

• Verbal Altercation:
• Dinio verbally protested in an angry tone, noting that she incurred expenses at home (such as payment for electricity) and that no one was aware of her actions.
• In a heated exchange, Dinio challenged Atty. Basilio by retorting that she should report the matter if she believed there was any wrongdoing.
• Reporting of the Incident:
• Atty. Basilio, stunned by Dinio’s reaction, later reported the incident to Presiding Judge Thelma C. Trinidad-Pe Aguirre.
• The next day, a meeting was convened to remind the office staff of the administrative rules and the need to observe proper procedures.
• Despite the meeting, Dinio did not show any remorse nor did she remit the required fee.

Dinio’s Explanation and Office Findings

• Dinio’s Defense:
• In her Comment, Dinio admitted that she transcribes stenographic notes at home due to the heavy workload at the branch.
• She explained that she charges P10.00 per page for the transcript as prescribed under the Rules of Court and by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, which is intended to offset expenses such as purchasing necessary materials (tape recorder, blank tapes, batteries) and utility bills.
• She claimed that her long service (almost 15 years) and the prevailing office practices may have led to a misunderstanding of her words.
• Findings by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):
• The OCA determined that Dinio was liable for disrespectful conduct toward a superior.
• Dinio was also found to have violated:
• Section 14, Rule 136 (regarding the unauthorized removal of official stenographic notes).

ii. Section 11, Rule 141 (regarding the non-remittance of TSN fees).

Procedural and Administrative Developments

• Re-docketing of the Complaint:
• A Resolution dated October 23, 2009, re-docketed the case as a regular administrative matter.
• The parties were required to manifest their willingness for resolution within ten days.
• Failure of both parties to file their manifestation prompted another Resolution to show cause why they should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt.
• Communication on Compliance:
• A letter dated August 31, 2010, informed Atty. Basilio of the court’s resolution dated July 28, 2010 regarding the show-cause order.
• Despite her resignation from the office in December 2008, Atty. Basilio was advised of the notice and indicated that she would secure a copy of the resolution.

Issue:

Whether the respondent, Melinda M. Dinio, committed acts of disrespect and insubordination towards her superior by refusing to remit a portion of the fees received for TSN.

• Consideration of the propriety of her verbal retort against Atty. Basilio.
• Whether her remarks and conduct in the office constituted disrespect under judicial and administrative norms.

Whether the respondent’s practice of transcribing stenographic notes at home, and the associated charging of fees to cover home expenses, can justify her non-compliance with remittance rules.

• Analysis of whether her financial and operational justifications excuse the violation of Section 11, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

Whether removing stenographic notes from the clerk’s office for transcription at home violated Section 14, Rule 136.

• The integrity and custody of official records and the requirement to comply with court orders regarding their handling.

Whether the resignation of the complainant, Atty. Basilio, affects the jurisdiction or validity of the administrative proceedings against the respondent.

• The implication of a complainant’s resignation on the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)