A.M. No. P-02-1549 - Opena vs. Luna

Complainant: Atty. Benjamin A. OpeAa, counsel on record for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. C-19052 (an action for declaration of nullity of marriage).
Respondent: Fe. Rizalina V. Luna, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 130, Caloocan City.

The plaintiff’s evidence was presented in the aforementioned civil case.
Respondent Luna served as the attending stenographic reporter during the hearing.

Atty. OpeAa requested a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) for the September 15 hearing.
The transcript was prepared in a triple-spaced format and counted eighteen (18) pages.
Respondent demanded a fee of five hundred pesos (P500.00) for the TSN.

Atty. OpeAa argued that the computation of the fee should be based solely on the number of pages.
He contended that the proceedings, being an open court hearing, did not justify an additional ex parte angle for charging an exorbitant fee.

Luna defended the charging of P500.00 by stating that it was customary among stenographers to charge that amount, particularly in cases involving ex parte proceedings.
She explained that it was common practice for the party presenting evidence in an ex parte context to shoulder all expenses related to the TSN copies, including those for various government offices.
Notwithstanding her long service record (over twenty years) and an unblemished record prior to this matter, she maintained that her collection of the fee was a duty performed in good faith.

Atty. OpeAa, irritated by the demand under duress due to the urgency of the upcoming hearing (scheduled for December 7, 2000), complied and later filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on December 19, 2000.
Respondent, in her comment dated May 15, 2001, denied having compelled the payment, attributing the transaction to standard practice.
The OCA’s Agenda Report (dated December 14, 2001) noted the existence of Section 10, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court which fixes uniform fees for transcription, thereby finding respondent in violation of the rule.
The OCA recommended a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for the violation, taking into account the mitigating factor of her long and unblemished service.
Procedural Developments

The case was docketed as a regular administrative matter in a resolution dated February 4, 2002, with both parties required to manifest their submissions on the basis of the pleadings filed.
Complainant Atty. OpeAa manifested conformity on March 18, 2002, while respondent did not submit any further manifestation.
Following the death of Atty. OpeAa in July 2003, respondent requested the dismissal of the case via a letter dated October 22, 2003.
In compliance with a Court Resolution of January 19, 2004, the OCA submitted its memorandum on March 17, 2004, denying the dismissal and reiterating the recommended fine.

Whether the fee demanded by the respondent (P500.00) for the transcript of stenographic notes was in accordance with the uniform fee prescribed by Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether the respondent’s act of demanding the fee, under circumstances where the complainant had no alternative but to pay due to the urgency of the proceeding, constitutes grave misconduct or a violation of the prescribed fee structure.
Whether the customary practice among stenographers charging P500.00 in ex parte hearings can be used as a valid justification for deviation from the uniform rate established by law.
Whether the subsequent death of the complainant exonerates the respondent from administrative liability or disciplinary sanction.