SPO2 JONATHAN M. ALCOVER SR., COMPLAINANT, VS. EDGARDO Y. BACATAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 24, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

Alcover versus Bacatan

The Case

This is an administrative case in which a convicted accused, SPO2 Jonathan M. Alcover Sr., charged Edgardo Y. Bacatan, Court Stenographer III of Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, with failing to make the transcripts of stenographic notes available to him and with deliberately delaying their release. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for court stenographers: the duty to transcribe notes within twenty days is owed to the public service itself, and it arises from the office, not from any demand by a litigant. It also shows how the Court grades the offense when no fraud or bad faith is proved.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a letter-complaint with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office required the respondent to comment, and he did. After evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the respondent be held liable for simple neglect of duty and be suspended for two months without pay, with a stern warning, and found no proof to support the charge of alteration. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative proceeding, and the Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

The complainant was one of the accused in a murder case before Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. On 18 September 2001, the witness Christian Paras testified in that case. The respondent, the court stenographer, took the notes of that testimony.

In a letter-complaint dated 27 June 2004, the complainant charged the respondent with failing to make the transcripts available. He alleged that the respondent cleverly and maliciously delayed the release of the transcript of the testimony of Christian Paras, and that the delay was meant to prevent him from strengthening his defense. He said that only on 15 June 2004, several months after the decision was rendered, was he furnished the first half of that transcript. In a later letter dated 1 August 2004, he clarified that the first part was made available in the last week of June 2004, and the last part in the first week of July 2004. He also alleged that the delay indicated the transcripts were altered.

The respondent denied tampering with the transcripts and denied deliberately delaying their release. He said that during the trial the complainant was furnished some transcripts, but after some time stopped getting copies, and that he even reminded the complainant by telephone. He said that after the decision, he released up to page 32 of the testimony of the witness because the remaining parts were still in draft form, and that pages 33 to 49 were eventually given in the last week of June or the first week of July. He attributed the delay to his heavy workload and to the need to transcribe notes in several other cases.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for failing to transcribe the stenographic notes within the period required by Administrative Circular Number 24-90.
• Whether or not the respondent tampered with or altered the transcripts of stenographic notes.
• Whether or not the respondent's failure to transcribe on time constitutes simple neglect of duty, and what penalty should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular Number 24-90, effective 1 August 1990, provides:

2. (a) All stenographers are required 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 attaching may be done by putting all said transcripts in a separate folder or envelope, which will then be joined to the record of the case.

This is the exact duty the respondent failed to perform, and it is the measure of his administrative liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent liable. The testimony of the witness was given on 18 September 2001, yet the respondent admittedly finished transcribing the notes only sometime in July 2004. That was an intolerable delay of two years and nine months, in plain violation of the Circular. The Court rejected his excuses. Heavy workload is not an adequate excuse, for otherwise every government employee charged with negligence would resort to the same convenient excuse to evade punishment. Nor does the failure of the complainant to get copies during the trial excuse the delay, because the Circular imposes the duty upon all court stenographers regardless of the presence or absence of a demand for the notes by the parties.

On the second issue, the Court dismissed the charge of tampering for lack of merit. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of substantiating the charges with substantial evidence, and reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Apart from bare allegations, no independent evidence showed that the respondent had tampered with the transcripts.

On the third issue, the Court held that, absent any attribution and substantial proof of fraud or bad faith, the failure to transcribe on time constitutes simple neglect of duty. The Court defined it as a disregard of, or a failure to give proper attention to, a task expected of an employee, signifying carelessness or indifference. It is a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, carrying suspension from work for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second. Considering that the respondent had been previously reprimanded for habitual tardiness, the Court adopted the recommended penalty of two months.

Doctrine

A court stenographer must transcribe all stenographic notes and attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty days from the time the notes are taken. This duty is imposed by Administrative Circular Number 24-90 upon all court stenographers, regardless of the presence or absence of a demand by the parties. Heavy workload is not an adequate excuse for failing to perform it. Failure to transcribe on time, absent substantial proof of fraud or bad faith, is simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the charges by substantial evidence; mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions cannot sustain a complaint.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended him from office for two months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the twenty-day rule: every stenographer must transcribe the notes and attach the transcripts to the record within twenty days from the time the notes are taken, and no demand by a party is needed to trigger the duty. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between simple neglect of duty and the graver charge of bad faith or tampering, and to test the rule that the complainant carries the burden of substantial evidence in administrative cases.