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

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-02-1549)

Factual Background

On September 15, 2000 the initial presentation of the plaintiff’s evidence in Civil Case No. C-19052, Susana E. Genevia v. Joseph T. Ching, was reported by Fe Rizalina V. Luna. On December 6, 2000 counsel of record, Atty. Benjamin A. Opena, requested a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of that hearing. The TSN prepared by respondent was triple-spaced and amounted to eighteen pages. Respondent demanded payment of P500.00 for the TSN. Complainant protested that the number of pages should determine the fee, and contested respondent’s reliance on the proceeding’s alleged ex parte nature. Despite protest, complainant paid P500.00 because he needed the TSN for the next day’s hearing.

Procedural Posture and Administrative Filing

On December 19, 2000 Atty. Benjamin A. Opena filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator charging respondent with grave misconduct. The OCA, in its Agenda Report dated December 14, 2001, found respondent to have violated the rule on uniform stenographers’ fees and recommended a fine of P1,000.00, with mitigation for twenty years of unblemished service. The matter was docketed by the Court as an administrative case on February 4, 2002. After the death of Atty. Opena in July 2003, respondent moved for dismissal. The OCA, in a memorandum of March 17, 2004, opposed dismissal and reiterated its recommendation. The Court resolved the matter on December 16, 2005.

Respondent’s Explanation

In her May 15, 2001 comment respondent admitted receipt of P500.00 but denied that she compelled payment. She explained that a customary practice among stenographers required the party presenting ex parte evidence to shoulder all transcription expenses, including copies for the Solicitor General, the City Prosecutor, and four copies for the record. She invoked long service of more than twenty years and prior absence of administrative or criminal charges as indicative of good faith and reasonableness.

Legal Issue Presented

The central issue was whether respondent violated Section 10, Rule 141, Rules of Court by charging P500.00 for an eighteen-page TSN contrary to the uniform page rate prescribed by the Rules. Subsidiarily, the Court considered whether alleged customary practice, the ex parte characterization, or the complainant’s subsequent death affected disciplinary liability.

OCA Finding and Recommendation

The OCA concluded that the Rules of Court prescribe uniform charges for stenographic transcripts—P5.00 per page before appeal and P3.60 per page after appeal—and that these rates apply without distinction to ex parte or other hearings. The OCA found respondent’s reliance on customary practice to be misplaced and recommended a fine of P1,000.00, allowing mitigation for long and unblemished service.

Court’s Analysis and Legal Reasoning

The Court agreed with the OCA and emphasized that the Rules of Court fix uniform rates for stenographers and leave no exception for ex parte hearings. The Court held that respondent’s demand of P500.00 for an eighteen-page TSN was improper and, given the urgency that compelled payment, amounted to compelling payment. The Court rejected ignorance or customary practice as an excuse for violating a rule that court personnel are expected to know. The Court reiterated the ethical obligations of judicial personnel under Republic Act No. 6713 to render prompt and courteous service and to avoid acts that would diminish public confidence in the Judiciary. The Court also noted that the complainant’s death did not divest it of disciplinary jurisdiction or render dismissal appropriate, citing authority that administrative jurisdiction continues until final resolution and that the government becomes the real aggrieved party once an administrative complaint is given due course.

Authorities Relied Upon

The Court cited precedent to underscore standards of conduct and the continuity of disciplinary jurisdiction. These included Racasa v. Collado-Calizo, 381 SCRA 151 [2002], In re: Ms. Edna S. Cesar, 388 SCRA 703 [2002], Re: Absence Without Official Leave of Ms. Lilian B. Bantog, 359 SCRA 20 [2001], Sarmiento v. Salamat, 364 SCRA 301 [2001], Zipagan v. Tattao, 365 SCRA 605 [2001], Arroyo v. Alcantara, 368 SCRA 567 [2001], Visitacion, Jr. v. Ediza, 362 SCRA 403 [2001], Dadap-Molinao v. Mijares, 372 SCRA 128 [2001], and Bulado v. Tiu, Jr., 329 SCRA 308 [2000]. Th

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-02-1549)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Atty. Benjamin A. Opena filed an affidavit-complaint dated December 19, 2000 with the Office of the Court Administrator charging Fe Rizalina V. Luna, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Branch 130, Caloocan City, with grave misconduct.
The OCA processed the complaint and issued an Agenda Report finding a violation of the Rules of Court and recommending disciplinary sanction.
The Court docketed the matter as an administrative case and required the parties to state whether they would submit the case on the pleadings.
Atty. Opena manifested his conformity to submission on the pleadings, while respondent did not file a timely manifestation.
After the complainant's death, respondent moved for dismissal, and the OCA recommended denial of dismissal and reaffirmed its earlier recommended sanction.

Key Factual Allegations

Atty. Opena was counsel of record for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. C-19052 entitled "Susana E. Genevia vs. Joseph T. Ching" before RTC, Branch 130.
On September 15, 2000, the initial presentation of plaintiff's evidence was taken and respondent Luna served as the attending stenographic reporter.
On December 6, 2000, Atty. Opena requested a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the September 15 hearing.
The TSN as prepared was triple-spaced, totaled eighteen pages, and respondent allegedly demanded PHP 500 for the copy.
Atty. Opena protested that the fee should be computed per page, but respondent maintained that PHP 500 was correct because the case involved annulment and the proceedings were ex parte.
Faced with the urgency of a scheduled hearing the following day, Atty. Opena paid the demanded PHP 500 and later filed the complaint with the OCA.

Procedural History

Respondent admitted receipt of PHP 500 but denied compelling payment and invoked customary practice among stenographers as justification.
The OCA, in its Agenda Report dated December 14, 2001, found that respondent violated the Rules of Court and recommended a fine of PHP 1,000 with mitigation for long and unblemished service.
The Court required manifestations and noted Atty. Opena's conformity on March 18, 2002, with no appearance from respondent.
Following Atty. Opena's death in July 2003, respondent sought immediate dismissal by letter dated October 22, 2003.
The OCA, by memorandum dated March 17, 2004, recommended denial of dismissal and reiterated the recommended fine of PHP 1,000.
The Court rendered judgment finding respondent guilty and ordered payment of a fine of PHP 2,000 with a warning.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent violated the Rules of Court by charging PHP 500 for an eighteen-page TSN in contravention of the prescribed rates.
Whether the ex parte nature of the proceeding justified charging a different or higher rate for the TSN.
Whether customary practice among stenographers excused deviation from the uniform rates prescribed by the Rules of Court.
Whether the complainant's subsequent death rendered the administrative case moot or divested the Court of disciplinary jurisdiction.

Contentions of the Parties

Atty. Opena contended that respondent demanded an excessive and unjustified fee of PHP 500 for an eighteen-page TSN and that the demand was tantamount to compulsion.
Respondent denied compelling payment, admitted recei