Case Summary (A.M. No. P-93-799)
Complaint and Allegations
The charge centered on the claim that respondent brought home stenographic notes taken in cases pending before the MTC and failed to submit the corresponding transcripts and her notes, notwithstanding demand by the MTC judge. The complainant stated that respondent submitted the transcript of stenographic notes in only one case. Respondent did not deny the substance of the act complained of. She explained that she took the notes home only to enable her to transcribe them because she lived far from the court.
Respondent further asserted that the complaint was motivated by retaliation. She claimed it was filed by the complainant and the presiding judge of the court because respondent and three other court employees had earlier filed an administrative complaint against the complainant and Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. She added that she feared leaving the stenographic notes in the office because, as she put it, something might happen to them if they were left there, considering that the judge and the clerk of court were allegedly bent on getting back at her.
The Rules Invoked: Rule 136, Sections 14 and 17
The complaint invoked Rule 136, Sec. 14, which provides that no record shall be taken from the clerk’s office without an order of the court, subject to specified exceptions not pertinent in the discussion that followed. It also invoked Rule 136, Sec. 17, which places on the stenographer the duty to deliver the notes taken during a court session to the clerk of court immediately at the close of the morning or afternoon session for attachment to the record, and makes it the duty of the clerk to demand compliance. The rule also requires that once transcribed, the transcript be delivered to the clerk duly initialed on each page.
The decision addressed these duties in light of related procedural requirements and subsequent administrative issuance. It explained that the requirement in Sec. 17 must be understood in light of Rule 41, Sec. 12 (civil cases) and Rule 122, Sec. 7 (criminal cases), which required transcription of stenographic notes only in the event of an appeal, except where a party requested transcripts. It then considered the impact of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 (July 12, 1990), which directed all stenographers “to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken.” The Court reasoned that this directive pro tanto modified the practical operation of the “immediately at the close of the session” requirement, because transcribing must precede attachment and the transcription had to be completed within twenty days; it would be incongruous to require immediate delivery of notes at session close while simultaneously requiring transcription within twenty days.
Procedural and Administrative Timeline as Presented
The decision reconstructed the sequence of events that informed its assessment of the parties’ conduct. Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. initially faulted respondent for failing to transcribe certain notes rather than for failing to deliver them immediately. The Court noted that Judge Palaypayon had even revoked the clearance issued to respondent in connection with her proposed transfer to the MTC of Bombon, Camarines Sur, based on the transcription lapse.
It also stated that the complainant clerk of court only later asked respondent for the notes from which transcripts had been made after respondent submitted the transcripts in Criminal Case No. 5682 (People v. Crisostomo Maynog). The Court expressed “reason to believe” that the present complaint was filed because respondent had filed an administrative complaint against the complainant and Judge Palaypayon, Jr., after which the complainant was ordered dismissed from the service while Judge Palaypayon, Jr. was fined P20,000.00.
The decision recorded that the administrative complaint was filed on October 5, 1992, and that on October 28, 1992 Judge Palaypayon, Jr. revoked the clearance previously issued to respondent on the ground that she still had notes not transcribed. It further recorded that when respondent later transcribed her notes and lost no time in submitting the transcripts, the complainant demanded the notes; afterward, the charge shifted to failure to deliver stenographic notes as required by Rule 136, Sec. 17.
The Parties’ Positions and the Court’s Assessment of Motive
In dealing with the merits, the Court rejected the attempt to treat respondent’s failure to deliver notes immediately at the close of the session as a clear Rule 136, Sec. 17 violation, given the pro tanto modification by Administrative Circular No. 24-90 and the structural necessity that notes be transcribed prior to attachment.
The Court also found no showing that the failure to comply had an ulterior motive. It noted that the record contained no indication that complainant ever required respondent to submit the notes immediately after taking them. It stated that the complainant bore at least an equal responsibility to see to it that stenographers deliver the notes as required and to ensure attachment to the record. The Court observed that there was no claim that respondent had any improper motive in failing to deliver the notes immediately, and it expressed belief that any noncompliance was attributable more to ignorance of the rule than to bad faith.
As to the allegation under Rule 136, Sec. 14 that respondent took records from the clerk’s office without an order, the Court accepted respondent’s explanation that she brought her notes home to transcribe them because she could not do so elsewhere and because she lived far from the court. It reasoned that transcription must be done in office. At the same time, in view of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 requiring transcribing within a short time, the Court extended a presumption of good faith. It quoted respondent’s rejoinder to reinforce the explanation that bringing notes home had occurred in good faith and without ulterior motive, motivated by the thought of helping in the speedy administration of justice.
Disposition and Penalty Imposed
While the Court warned against future noncompliance with the requirement that transcription be done in the off
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-93-799)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY filed an administrative complaint charging Juvy N. Cosca with violations of Rule 136, Sec. 14 and Sec. 17 of the Rules of Court.
- The complainant served as clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, while the respondent served as court stenographer of the same court.
- The complaint alleged disciplinary misconduct in the handling of stenographic notes and transcripts in pending cases before the Municipal Trial Court.
- The Court adjudicated the administrative matter and issued a warning and conditional orders for future compliance and transcription.
Key Factual Allegations
- The complainant alleged that the respondent brought home stenographic notes taken in cases pending before the MTC and failed to submit the corresponding transcripts and her notes despite demand by the MTC judge.
- The complainant stated that the respondent had submitted the transcript of stenographic notes in only one case.
- The respondent admitted that she brought home the notes but explained that she did so to transcribe them because she lived far from the court.
- The respondent asserted that the complaint was retaliatory, stemming from her administrative complaint against the complainant and Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. involving discipline where the complainant was dismissed and the judge fined.
- The respondent claimed she brought the notes home out of fear that “something may happen” if the notes remained in the office of the complainant due to perceived animus between them.
- The complainant identified an administrative timeline showing that the judge revoked the respondent’s clearance because she still had notes not yet transcribed.
Rule 136 Provisions Cited
- The complainant invoked Rule 136, Sec. 14, which provides that no record shall be taken from the clerk’s office without an order of the court, subject to specified exceptions not applicable here.
- The complainant invoked Rule 136, Sec. 17, which imposed duties on stenographers to deliver their notes immediately at the close of the morning or afternoon session for attachment to the record, and duties on the clerk to demand compliance.
- The Court treated the duty under Rule 136, Sec. 17 as requiring contextual interpretation in light of rules governing transcription in appeals and in criminal cases.
- The Court further applied the effect of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 to modify the understanding of the “immediately at the close” delivery requirement.
Administrative Circular Effects
- The Court noted that Rule 41, Sec. 12 (civil cases) and Rule 122, Sec. 7 (criminal cases) required transcription of stenographic notes primarily upon appeal or upon request by a party.
- The Court held that Administrative Circular No. 24-90, promulgated on July 12, 1990, directed all stenographers to “transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken.”
- The Court reasoned that the requirement in Rule 136, Sec. 17 for immediate delivery of notes at the close of the session could not be read as absolute in the face of the twenty-day transcription directive.
- The Court concluded that the “immediately” delivery requirement was pro tanto modified, such that stenographers were required to deliver the notes only after transcription, with transcription to be completed within the twenty-day period.
- The Court rejected the charge that non-immediate delivery of notes, standing alone, constituted a violation once the administrative circula