Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1549)
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1549)
Facts:
Atty. Benjamin A. Opena, Petitioner, vs. Fe Rizalina V. Luna, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 130, Respondent, ADM. MATTER NO. P-02-1549 (Formerly AM OCA IPI No. 01-1025-P), promulgated December 16, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Atty. Benjamin A. Opena was counsel of record for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. C-19052 (an action for declaration of nullity of marriage) pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 130. On September 15, 2000, the plaintiff's initial presentation of evidence was taken and Fe Rizalina V. Luna, the respondent, acted as the attending court stenographic reporter.
On December 6, 2000, Atty. Opena requested from respondent a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the September 15 hearing. The TSN was prepared triple-spaced and totaled eighteen pages. Respondent allegedly demanded P500.00 for the copy. Complainant protested that the fee should be determined by the number of pages; respondent insisted the P500.00 was proper because the case was an annulment proceeding and the presentation was, in her view, ex parte. Despite his objection, Atty. Opena paid the P500.00 because he needed the TSN for a hearing scheduled the next day, and subsequently filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated December 19, 2000 charging respondent with grave misconduct.
In her May 15, 2001 comment, respondent admitted receiving P500.00 but denied coercion; she explained that stenographers commonly charge that amount when the presenting party proceeds ex parte, since the party bears transcription expenses and multiple copies are produced. She further pointed to her over 20 years of service without prior administrative or criminal charges.
The OCA, in its Agenda Report of December 14, 2001, found that Section 10, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court (now Sec. 11) fixes uniform fees for stenographers — P5.00 per page before appeal and P3.60 after appeal, with one-third to the court and two-thirds to the stenographer — and recommended respondent be fined P1,000.00, appreciating mitigating circumstances of long and unblemished service.
The Supreme Court docketed the matter as a regular administrative case (Resolution of February 4, 2002) and required parties to state whether they submitted on the pleadings; Atty. Opena manifested conformity on March 18, 2002. Atty. Opena later died (documented death sometime in July 2003). Respondent requested dismissal on October 22, 2003. The OCA submitted a memorandum dated March 17, 2004 recommending denial of dismissal and reiterating its earlier P1,000.00 fine recommendation.
The Court, agreeing with the OCA, found that respondent's demand of P500.00 effectively compelled payment given the urgency of the needed TSN; that the Rules of Court prescribe uniform rates applicable regardless of whether a proceeding is ex parte; and that ignorance or customary practice did not excuse respondent. The Court therefore found respondent guilty of violating Section 10, Rule 141 and imposed discipline, as set out below.
Issues:
- Does the death of the complainant (Atty. Opena) require dismissal of the administrative complaint against the court stenographer?
- Did respondent Fe Rizalina V. Luna commit an administrative violation by charging P500.00 for an eighteen-page TSN in contravention of Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and what penalty is appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)