MARCELO G. PASCO, COMPLAINANT, VS. LORETO PERFECTO AND JOSEFINA MACALINCAG, RESPONDENTS.

Verified complaint of Mr. Marcelo G. Pasco charging Josefina A. Macalincag, temporary stenographer in the Municipal Court
of Valenzuela, Bulacan, with:

“(1)    Intentionally
misleading not only the Municipal Court Judge but also an officer of the court
into believing that the accused in Crim. Case No.
12028 were actually reporting to the court, strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Laurel Law, when in truth and in fact, said accused were not
so reporting; intentionally not informing the court and the private prosecutor
despite the fact that the Presiding Judge told counsel in open court that the
accused were re­porting in accordance with law, that the excerpts she prepared
did not reflect the fact that the accused had not strictly complied with the
law;

“(2)    Intentionally
delaying the transcription of the stenographic notes in Crim.
Case No. 12028, although the same is about to be terminated.” (p. 2, Memo.)

After respondent filed her answer, the matter was referred to
Judge Eduardo P. Caguioa of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, Branch VIII in Valenzuela, who
submitted the following report and recommendation:

“For purposes of expediency and clarity, the undersigned
Investigator will take up first the charges against respondent Josefina Macalincag, Court Stenographer of the Municipal Court of
Valenzuela, Bulacan.

“The first charge is as follows:

‘(a)         Intentionally misleading not only the Mun.
Court Judge but also an officer of the Court into believing
that the accused in Crim. Case No. 12028 were
actually reporting with the court strictly in accordance with the provisions of
the Laurel Law, when in truth and in fact said accused were not so
reporting.  That despite the fact that
the Presiding Judge in formed the counsel in open court that the accused were
reporting in accordance with law, respondent stenographer who prepared the
excerpts, intentionally did not inform the court and the private prosecutor
that the excerpts she prepared did not reflect that the accused had not
strictly complied with the law.’

“The charge in this case is that, Mrs. Macalincag
prepared an excerpt (Exhs. B and B-1) in Criminal
Case No. 12028 of the Municipal Court of Valenzuela of whether the various
accused in said case reported every two (2) weeks to the Clerk of Court.  There is no accusation that the excerpt is
falsified or that it is incorrect.  The
charge is, that the contents of the excerpt were not
brought to the attention of Judge Manzano by Mrs. Macalincag when she submitted the excerpt to the Judge in
open court, and during the time the question of whether the accused were
reporting to the Clerk of Court was being ventilated.  It is to be noted, however, that there is no
duty imposed by law on the Municipal Court Stenographer to make this
excerpt.  The undisputed testimony of
Mrs. Macalincag is that, she prepared this excerpt
upon express order of Judge Manzano.  That being the case there was no duty on her
part to call the attention of Judge Manzano as to the
contents of the excerpt.  That was up to
Judge Manzano and to the proper officer entrusted by
law to report to Judge Manzano.  It is not pretended that it is the duty of
the Municipal Court Stenographer to make this report.  The fact therefore that the Judge may have
been misled by the excerpt is not to be attributed to the Court Stenographer whose
only duty was purely mechanical, and that was to obey the order of the Judge by
preparing an excerpt of the report.

“It is submitted therefore that this accusation was not
proven.

“The second charge against Mrs. Macalincag, is that:

‘(b)         Intentionally
delayed the preparation of the stenographic notes in Crim.
Case No. 12028, as a matter of fact up to the present there is still pending
transcription of proceedings in aforesaid case, despite the fact that the said
case is about to be terminated.’

“The respondent in this case admitted having failed to give a
transcript of the testimony of complainant as requested by him although she
furnished complainant with a copy of the transcript of the testimonies of the
other witnesses (Exhs. 1-A to 1-K
and 2 to 2-J).  There is no doubt
likewise that complainant demanded a copy of said transcript.  However, the failure of said stenographer to
furnish the copy must be seen in the light of the following circumstances:  First, Mrs. Macalincag
is the sole stenographer in the Municipal Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan.  The number of cases that are filed and calendared in the Municipal
Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan are very
numerous.  As a matter of fact more than
ten (10) cases a day are calendared and Mrs. Macalincag
attends hearings of the Municipal Court everyday, Monday through Saturday.  In the morning, Stenographer Macalincag takes down the proceedings of the hearings and
in the afternoon she takes down the orders of the Judge as well as takes down
his decisions.  Second, that when
witness Marcelo Pasco in Crim. Case No. 12028
testified, Judge Manzano allowed counsel
Atty. Viola to take down the testimony through a tape recorder.  Stenographer Macalincag
explained that her failure to submit the transcript was due to the fact that
she could not find any time to transcribe the same because of the load of her
work and, because of the fact that counsel Viola was given the privilege of
taking down the testimony of complainant through a tape recorder.  The last reason given by Stenographer Macalincag is of course not tenable, as only her
transcribed notes are the official report of the proceedings.  However, the load of work of the single
stenographer of the Municipal Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan
is such that really delay in the transcription of the testimony of a witness in
a case is not only the foreseeable result but the inevitable result.  Stenographer Macalincag
has too much work for her to bear alone. 
It is not her fault then that she cannot immediately give transcription
of notes inasmuch as she must give preference to the work of the Court as well
as the orders of the Judge and his decisions.

“It is submitted therefore that there was no intentional
failure on the part of Stenographer Macalincag to
furnish complainant Pasco with a
copy of the transcribed notes of his testimony but rather that the pressure of
work prevented the said stenographer from doing so.

RECOMMENDATION

“The undersigned recommends that Stenographer Macalincag be exonerated from the two (2) charges that were
lodged against her.  x x x x”
(pp. 48-51, Rec.)

We have reviewed the record and We find
the foregoing report and recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence
We therefore approve the same in toto.

On the other hand, Loreto Perfecto, clerk of court of the same
court is charged with:

“(1)    Violating the provisions of the Laurel Law, commonly known
as R.A. No. 6036, as follows:

a.            Section 1(c):  That
despite knowledge that accused in Crim. Case 12028
had previously failed to appear during the scheduled hearings, and could
therefore be considered as having jumped bail, respondent had failed to so
inform the municipal court Judge; hence, accused continued to enjoy provisional
liberty;

b.            Section 1(d):  That
despite knowledge that accused in Crim. Case No.
12028 had violated the Laurel Law, respondent did not so inform the municipal
court Judge, and the accused were allowed to enjoy temporary liberty;

c.            Section 1(e):  That
despite knowledge that accused Rolando Domingo y Santorfina
had been formerly convicted and had served sentence as per certification
submitted to said respondent, and despite knowledge that said accused was
actually detained at the Caloocan City Jail,
respondent failed to so inform the municipal court Judge;

d.            Section 2:  That
respondent failed to report to the municipal judge that accused in Crim. Case No. 12028 do not report every two weeks as
provided by law;

e.            That respondent
exacted money from persons or relatives and friends of persons who avail of the
benefits of the Laurel Law, contrary to the spirit and intent of the said law;

“(2)    Failing to follow
the Order dated February 5, 1975,
of Hon. Conrado Manzano,
Presiding Judge of the municipal court.

“(3)    Violating the
provisions of the Civil Service Rules and provisions of Pres. Decree No. 6,
paragraphs d, 1, and aa, in that respondent plays tennis
during office hours, to the prejudice of the service.

“(4)    Violating the
provisions of the Administrative Code, Department of Justice Circular, and the
provisions of Pres. Decree No. 6, more particularly par. x, in that despite
knowledge of the prohibition against engaging in private business, vocation or
profession, respondent has solicited bail bonds, for consideration, to be
posted in the Court wherein he is employed as Clerk of Court, or in other
courts in and around Valenzuela, Bulacan, without the
permission required by rules and regulations.

“(5)    Violating the
Rules of Court, in that he had failed to verify, before receiving pleadings,
such as Motions to Lift Orders of Arrest, whether the counsel of record,
particularly in Crim. Case No. 12028, had been
furnished with copies of said pleadings. 
(pp. 1-2, Memo.)

These charges were denied by respondent in his answer,
hence the case was also referred to Judge Caguioa for
investigation, report and recommendation. 
Hearings were thereafter conducted wherein all the parties were duly
heard.

In his report, the Investigator submits that the first, second,
third and fifth specifications under the first charge have not been proven, as
also the fourth charge, and with respect to the second charge, the same is
already covered by the fourth specification under the first charge, which
together with the third and fifth, he submits have been substantiated.

We have also gone over the records on which the portion of the
report of the Investigator pertinent to the above matters is based, and We find no reason to alter his findings.  In other words, putting aside the charges and
specifications which, as recommended by him should be deemed as not proved, We further approve the Investigator’s conclusions as
follows:

“Fourth violation:

‘(d)         Sec. 2:  Failure to report to Municipal Judge that
accused in Crim. Case No. 12028 does not report every
2 weeks as provided for by law.’

“In support of this violation complainant submitted the
excerpt prepared by Stenographer Macalincag and
marked as Exhs. ‘B’ and ‘B-1’, as
well as the originals from which the excerpt was taken and marked as Exhs. ‘D’, ‘D-1’ to ‘D-10’.  These documentary evidences clearly show that
the accused in Crim. Case No. 12028 were not
reporting regularly every two (2) weeks as required by the Laurel Law.  This fact was not made known by respondent to
Judge Manzano and as a matter of fact the latter had
to order respondent Macalincag to make an excerpt of Exhs. ‘D’, ‘D-1’ to ‘D-10’, indicating
the lack of knowledge of Judge Manzano of the
irregular reporting by the accused to respondent Clerk of Court Perfecto.  It is submitted that this violation is
sufficiently proved by the evidence submitted.” (p. 54,
Record.)

x        x          x          x          x          x          x

“The third charge is:

‘(3)         Provisions of the
Civil Service Rules and provisions of Presidential Decree No. 6, par. d, 1, and
aa:- In that despite knowledge of prohibition,
respondent plays tennis even during office hours, to the prejudice of the
service.’

“In support of this charge complainant testified that on June 13, 1974 after his case was
postponed, he saw respondent Perfecto changing into tennis clothes in his room
and then left the court presumably to play tennis.  However, complainant did not actually see
respondent Perfecto playing tennis. 
However, on two (2) occasions, the dates of which he cannot specify,
complainant testified that he saw respondent Perfecto playing tennis doubles at
the municipal tennis court of Valenzuela, Bulacan.  The reason why complainant could not
particularize the dated was that he did not pay attention to respondent playing
tennis because he thought that the situation will not reach this far.  However, complainant categorically stated
that he saw respondent Perfecto playing tennis between 9:00 and 10:00 in
the morning.

“Respondent Perfecto denied this charge and in support of his
denial he presented as witness the caretaker of the municipal tennis court, one
Francisco Nacorda, who stated that he did not see the
respondent playing tennis during office hours and that the playing days of
respondent Perfecto were merely after office hours, on Wednesdays at 4:30 in
the afternoon and on Sundays from 7:00 in the morning.  This witness stated that nobody could play in
the tennis court without first fixing it with him.  However, on cross-examination this witness
admitted that if a person wanted to play tennis without first arranging matters
with him, such person could do so and witness will not know about it because in
that case witness would be arriving late at the tennis court.  Respondent Perfecto likewise denied the
accusation that he played tennis during office hours and admitted only playing
tennis twice a week, on Wednesday after office hours and on Sunday, saying that
he could not play tennis on other days because he was prohibited by his doctor.

“Fe de Gucena, the only witness of
the complainant other than himself, testified that she had filed a case in the
Municipal Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan and that when
she went back for the first time to inquire about her criminal case (Exhs. I and I-1) respondent Perfecto was not in his office
and she saw him playing tennis at the municipal tennis court and this was
between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning.

“Despite the denial by respondent Perfecto of this charge, it
is submitted that the testimony of the complainant together with that of his
witness, Fe de Gucena, proves this charge
notwithstanding the denial by respondent’s witness Nacorda.”
(pp. 56-57, Id.)

x        x          x          x          x          x          x

“The fifth charge is for violation of:

‘(5)         Provisions of the
Rules of Court:  In that despite
knowledge, he had failed to verify before receiving pleadings whether the
counsel of records (particularly in Crim. Case No.
12028 specially Motions to Lift Orders of Arrest, etc.) had been furnished said
pleadings.’

“In support of this charge complainant submitted Exhibits ‘H’,
‘H-1’ to ‘H-17’ showing pleadings prepared by the accused or their counsel and
copies of which were not furnished to the complainant or his lawyer.  Respondent Perfecto, however, explained that
in a memorandum marked as Exhibit ‘3’, dated July 13, 1973, Judge Conrado Manzano of the Municipal Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan, specified the duties of the personnel of the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan.  When
questioned as to why no particular duties were assigned to him, respondent
Perfecto testified that his duty was to supervise the whole personnel of the Office
of the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Court. 
Respondent Perfecto likewise testified that Judge Manzano’s
instructions were to the effect that in case of motions to lift warrant of
arrest, the same should be submitted to him right away even without copy being
furnished to the other party because of the urgent nature of said motions.  He likewise testified that on other pleadings
there were instructions to the clerk assigned to receive motions, namely, Teresita de Jesus, not to accept the same unless copy was
first furnished to the other party or his counsel.  Exhibits ‘H’ to ‘H-17’ indubitably show,
however, that copies of said pleadings were not furnished to the complainant or
his lawyer.  It is therefore clear that
these exhibits were admitted by clerk Teresita de
Jesus in violation of the instructions of Judge Manzano,
as well as those of respondent Perfecto. 
However, it is likewise clear that respondent Perfecto did not see to it
that clerk Teresita de Jesus complied with her
instructions, because these are more than 18 pleadings wherein the copies were
not furnished to the other party.  It is
therefore submitted that respondent Perfecto was negligent in his supervisory
duty of seeing to it that his personnel followed properly instructions.” (pp. 59-60, Id.)

Stated otherwise, We find respondent guilty (1) of having
violated the civil service rules for having been playing tennis on two or three
occasions during office hours; (2) of having failed in his duty, as clerk of court,
to inform the presiding judge that the accused in Criminal Case No. 12028 had
not been reporting twice a week as required by the Laurel Law; and (3) of
laxity in the supervision of his subordinates resulting in several pleadings
being filed with the court without being accompanied by proper proof of service
upon the other party, which, under his own instructions to the clerk-in-charge,
Teresita de Jesus, should not have been received for
filing.

Nevertheless, We do not consider the
proven charges to be so serious as to require drastic action against
respondent, particularly, if it is considered that he has been in the service
for more than 22 years and this is the first time that any administrative
complaint has been filed against him. 
Accordingly, We feel that a fine of equivalent
to respondent’s salary for month and a strong reprimand, together with a
warning that any subsequent administrative fault on his part will be dealt with
more severely would suffice to serve the interests of the service.

WHEREFORE, respondent Josefina A. Macalincag
is hereby exonerated of the charges against her and the case is dismissed as to
her, and, with respect to respondent Loreto Perfecto, he is hereby found guilty
of the charges and specifications as above indicated, and he is ordered to pay
a fine equivalent to his salary for one month. 
He is further repri­manded severely and warned that for any subsequent
administrative fault he may be found guilty of, he will be dealt with more
severely.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio, Muñoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Martin,
Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.