ACTING EXECUTIVE JUDGE HENRI JP INTING, COMPLAINANT, VS. LANI D. BORJA, COURT STENOGRAPHER, METC, BRANCH 33, QUEZON CITY RESPONDENT.

Inting versus Borja

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Acting Executive Judge Henri JP Inting, in his official capacity, brought to the attention of the Supreme Court the loss of the stenographic notes taken during a hearing conducted before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 33. The respondent is Lani D. Borja, the court stenographer who took those notes and who admitted that they were lost when her backpack was snatched while she was riding a passenger jeepney home. The case matters because it fixes the standard of care owed by court personnel over official records and shows how the Court classifies and penalizes the failure to observe that standard. It is a disciplinary matter, not an ordinary civil or criminal action, and it reached the Court as an original administrative proceeding.

Procedural History

The case began with a sworn complaint filed by Abdal M. Sarip against Jimmy Maruhom, a sheriff of the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court, charging dishonesty and misconduct. The Supreme Court referred that complaint to the Executive Judge of the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court for investigation, report, and recommendation. During the investigation, the stenographic notes of Sarip's testimony were lost, and the Executive Judge reported the loss to the Court. Because Sarip never appeared for the retaking of his testimony, the Executive Judge forwarded the record to the Office of the Court Administrator for further proceedings.

The Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the matter and recommended that the accusation against the sheriff be dismissed for lack of merit, and that the loss of the stenographic notes be docketed as a separate administrative case for negligence against Borja. The Supreme Court adopted the first three recommendations by resolution and required Borja and the Executive Judge to manifest whether they were submitting the case for resolution on the pleadings already filed. Borja filed her manifestation, and the case was resolved on the records. The Court therefore acted as an original administrative tribunal, not as a reviewing court of any lower court ruling.

Facts

In a sworn complaint dated February 5, 1998, Abdal M. Sarip charged Jimmy Maruhom, a sheriff of the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court, with dishonesty and misconduct. Sarip alleged that Maruhom had misrepresented himself, together with one Robert Paudac, as an agent of a certain Nelia Valera, and that on the strength of that representation Sarip purchased a house in Holy Spirit, Quezon City, which was later demolished as having been illegally constructed on land said to belong to Tambunting Realty Corporation. Maruhom denied the charges in his comment.

The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Executive Judge for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Executive Judge scheduled the case for investigation, and on May 28, 2001, Sarip testified. The stenographic notes of that testimony were never transcribed. By explanation dated June 26, 2001, Borja, the stenographer of Branch 33 who took the notes, stated that the backpack in which she had placed them was snatched on the evening of June 21, 2001 by an unidentified man while she was on her way home on board a jeepney bound for Balic-Balic, Sampaloc, Manila. She attached a photocopy of an alarm report recorded by a police investigator of the Sampaloc Police reflecting her complaint about the snatching.

Because the notes were lost, the Executive Judge sought an extension of time to file his report so that Sarip's testimony could be retaken. Despite the scheduling and rescheduling of the retaking, Sarip never appeared. The Executive Judge then forwarded the record to the Office of the Court Administrator. In her manifestation filed in compliance with the Court's resolution, Borja explained that she had brought the stenographic notes home for transcription because of heavy loads, and she asked that the case against her be dismissed.

Issues

• Whether or not court stenographer Lani D. Borja is administratively liable for the loss of the stenographic notes she took during the May 28, 2001 hearing.
• Whether or not her act of bringing the court records home without prior permission from her immediate superior, and her failure to safeguard them while in transit, constitutes simple neglect of duty.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator is the correct penalty under the applicable Civil Service rule for a first offense.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 19, series of 1999, as cited in the decision, provides:

Simple Neglect of Duty is a less grave offense and imposes the penalty, for the first offense, of suspension for One (1) Month and One (1) Day to Six (6) Months without pay.

This provision supplies both the classification of the offense and the range of the penalty, and it is the basis for the penalty actually imposed on Borja.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Borja administratively liable. It found that she failed to seek prior authority from her immediate superior to bring home the stenographic notes and failed to safeguard them, and that these failures reflected a disregard of a duty arising from carelessness or indifference. The Court defined the offense in these terms:

Simple Neglect of Duty has been defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that Borja's conduct constituted simple neglect of duty, not a graver offense. The Court noted that this was her first offense, and it treated her letter-explanation as sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process, since she had already been given the chance to explain her side.

On the third issue, the Court held that the recommended penalty was well taken. Applying Section 19 of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular, which classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense and fixes the penalty for a first offense at suspension for one month and one day to six months without pay, the Court imposed the minimum of that range.

Doctrine

Court personnel are bound to observe care and diligence in the custody of official records, and a stenographer who takes stenographic notes home for transcription without prior permission from her immediate superior, and who fails to safeguard those notes while in transit, is guilty of simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him, and it signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Under Section 19 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 19, series of 1999, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense, and the penalty for a first offense ranges from suspension for one month and one day to six months without pay. Where the respondent has been given the opportunity to explain and has done so, that explanation satisfies the requirement of due process in the administrative proceeding.

Disposition

The Court found Lani D. Borja guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended her without pay for one month and one day, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more strictly.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Examiners use this case to test the classification of offenses under the Civil Service rules and the penalty for a first offense of simple neglect of duty by court personnel.