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

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-13-3155)

Accusations in the Letter-Complaint

The letter-complaint, dated 27 October 2010, alleged three principal acts. First, respondent allegedly failed to comply with SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90 because she supposedly did not transcribe the TSN within twenty (20) days from the date of hearing. Second, respondent allegedly failed to issue an official receipt (OR) for the payments made for the TSN. Third, respondent was alleged to have antedated the date when the TSN was prepared, because the ORs presented by respondent for the hearing dates of 27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010 bore dates of 23 December 2010 and 18 December 2010, respectively, while the amounts shown—P79.20 and P92.40—were said to be inconsistent with the amounts indicated in a temporary acknowledgment receipt issued by respondent.

Referral, Investigation, and Submission for Resolution

Upon the filing of the complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended referral to the executive judge of the RTC of Cebu City for investigation, report, and recommendation. Executive Judge Silvestre Maamo, Jr. conducted the investigation. The proceedings proceeded on the record because complainant failed to appear on three consecutive occasions for the presentation of his evidence. After these failures, the case was submitted for resolution based on the evidence already available.

Findings of the Investigating Judge

Based on the investigation report submitted by Judge Maamo, the investigating judge made several determinations. On the allegation of noncompliance with SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90, he found no basis because the TSN for the 27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010 hearings had been transcribed within the required twenty-day period. As to the allegation that no hearing had been conducted on 30 September 2010, the investigating judge found that the record showed such a hearing did not occur because there was a Motion to Postpone scheduled for that date and, in any event, another stenographer, Beatriz Espartero, was on duty.

On the allegation of non-issuance of receipts, the investigating judge reviewed the transaction flow and found the following. Respondent requested from complainant P500 on the understanding that it would be used to buy ink for the printer and that the amount would be treated as advance payment. Respondent admitted issuing an acknowledgment receipt on 22 July 2011 for P240 received on 27 May 2010 as advance payment for the TSN. The investigating judge also found that the actual remittance for the payment for the TSN for the 27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010 hearing dates was made only on 23 December 2010 and 19 December 2010, respectively, which was after the complaint had been filed. Finally, the investigating judge found respondent failed to prove that she had regularly remitted collections for the TSN to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the RTC-Cebu City, as required by the relevant OCA circular referenced in the text.

As to the alleged antedating practice, respondent admitted in her comment dated 21 January 2011 that the certification in the TSN must coincide with the date of the hearing to avoid confusion, but she admitted that she actually antedated the certification date as a matter of practice. The investigating judge thus recommended reprimand for violations identified as arising from respondent’s conduct in asking for advances from litigants, issuing acknowledgment receipts for collecting payments for the TSN, failing to immediately remit TSN collections accruing to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) on the day the payments were received, and failing to prove her claimed regular remittance of such collections to the OCC.

OCA Evaluation

The investigation report was forwarded to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The OCA found that the conclusions of Judge Maamo were supported by the evidence on record. Specifically, the OCA agreed that respondent complied with the SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90 requirement on completing TSNs within twenty days from the hearing. However, the OCA determined that respondent violated Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court in relation to the issuance of official receipts and the manner in which she handled the payments.

The Court’s Ruling on Liability

The Court held that respondent had complied with SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90 by completing the TSNs within twenty days from the hearings. The Court, however, agreed with the investigating judge and the OCA that respondent still violated the relevant ethical and conduct standards. The Court anchored its conclusion on an admitted critical fact in the record. Respondent received from complainant the supposed payment for the TSN on 22 July 2010, but she remitted the money to the cashier of the Clerk of Court only on 19 December 2010 and 23 December 2010.

The Court stressed that it would not tolerate practices involving the asking of advance payment from litigants, especially when coupled with the unauthorized acceptance of judicial fees. It pointed out that Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court states that payment for requests of copies of TSN shall be made to the Clerk of Court, which means payment could not be made to respondent because the transaction was official and had to be processed through the Clerk of Court.

The Court further held that respondent, being a stenographer, was not authorized to accept payment for judicial fees, even if a portion of those fees was intended to be paid to her. It also rejected respondent’s implied good faith in issuing acknowledgment receipts. The issuance of such acknowledgment receipts could not be construed as good faith, because respondent remitted the TSN payment approximately five (5) months after receiving it, or only after the complaint had been filed. The Court characterized the belated remittance as tainted with bad faith. It also emphasized that court personnel must act with strict propriety and decorum to preserve and rebuild public trust in the judiciary. The Court reiterated that court employees are held to high ethical standards and that their conduct, from presiding judges to clerks and stenographers, must remain beyond reproach to prevent suspicion that may taint the administration of justice.

Classification of the Offense and Imposition of Penalty

The Court did not agree with the investigating judge and the OCA as to the recommended penalty. It treated the infraction as classified as a grave offense under the referenced Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The Court noted that under that classification, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service is punishable on the first offense by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.

Still, the Court reduced the pe

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-13-3155)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Joefil Baguio filed a letter-complaint charging Maria Fe V. Arnejo, a stenographer, with willful gross neglect of duties.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommended referral of the complaint to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Executive Judge Silvestre Maamo, Jr. conducted the investigation, but the case was submitted for resolution after complainant failed three consecutive times to present his evidence.
The investigation judge submitted an Investigation Report, which the OCA later evaluated and adopted.
The Supreme Court resolved the administrative matter, finding respondent guilty, but reducing the penalty recommended by the investigating judge and the OCA.

Key Factual Allegations

The complaint asserted that respondent failed to comply with SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which allegedly required stenographers to transcribe notes within twenty (20) days from the date of hearing.
The complaint alleged non-issuance of an official receipt (OR) for payments made for the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN).
The complaint alleged antedating of the TSN preparation date and inconsistencies in the OR dates and amounts relative to a temporary acknowledgment receipt previously issued by respondent.
The admitted facts established that respondent received supposed TSN payment from complainant and later remitted the money to the cashier of the Clerk of Court only in December 2010.

Investigating Judge’s Findings

The investigating judge found no basis for the allegation of noncompliance with SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90, because the TSNs for the 27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010 hearings were transcribed within the twenty (20) days period.
The investigating judge found that there was no hearing on 30 September 2010, because a Motion to Postpone had been filed and a different stenographer, Beatriz Espartero, was on duty.
On receipts, the investigating judge detailed that respondent asked complainant for P500 allegedly as an advance payment for ink, issued an acknowledgment receipt for P240, and later admitted that the TSN certification date must coincide with the date of hearing but stated she actually antedated the certification date as a practice.
The investigating judge found that the actual remittances for TSN payments for the 27 May 2010 and 8 September 2010 hearing dates were made only in December 2010, after the complaint was filed.
The investigating judge found that respondent failed to prove that she had regularly remitted TSN collections to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) in accordance with OCA Circular No. 83-2010.
The investigating judge recommended a disciplinary sanction for (a) requesting advances from litigants, (b) issuing acknowledgment receipts for collecting TSN payments, and (c) failing to immediately remit TSN collections to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) on the day payments were received, coupled with failure of proof as to regular remittance practice.

OCA’s Evaluation and Recommendations

The OCA found that respondent complied with SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90 in completing TSNs within the required twenty (20) days from hearing.
The OCA concluded that respondent nevertheless committed a violation concerning the issuance of receipts, and held that respondent violated Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The OCA found the investigating judge’s factual conclusions supported by the evidence and aligned with the recommended disposition, though the Supreme Court later modified the penalty.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent violated SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90 by failing to transcribe TSNs within the mandated twenty (20) days from hearing.
Whether respondent violated Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court by requesting or receiving payments for TSNs directly and/or by issuing acknowledgment receipts instead of requiring payment to the Clerk of Court.
Whether respondent acted in good faith in accepting TSN-related payments an