JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, BAGUIO CITY, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSEFINA F. DELIM, STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, BAGUIO CITY, RESPOND…

Reyes versus Delim

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Supreme Court by Judge Antonio C. Reyes of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, against Josefina F. Delim, Stenographer Three of the same branch, charging her with insubordination, gross dishonesty, and gross negligence for the loss of the stenographic notes she took during a hearing in an estate case. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the disciplinary rule for court stenographers who take their notes out of the office and lose them. Second, it teaches a sharp lesson on procedure: a complainant who later withdraws his own complaint does not thereby strip the Supreme Court of its exclusive power to discipline court personnel, and a preventive suspension is not a penalty.

Procedural History

The complaint, dated January 4, 2000, was filed directly with the Supreme Court, which is the proper forum because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court exclusive power over the discipline of lower court judges and court personnel. The complainant also informed the Court Administrator that he had suspended the respondent for one month without pay. On November 22, 2000, the complainant filed a manifestation to withdraw the administrative complaint. The Supreme Court nevertheless decided to investigate. On March 21, 2001, it redocketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter, required the respondent to comment, and referred the case to Executive Judge Nelsonida Ulat-Marrero of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, for report and recommendation. The investigating judge found the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, gross negligence in the custody of stenographic notes, and dishonesty, and recommended a thirty-day suspension, deemed already served by the preventive suspension. The case then returned to the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

On November 11, 1999, the respondent took the stenographic notes at a hearing in the estate proceedings of the deceased spouses Gelacio and Vicenta Munsayac. She took the notes home, which she admitted stenographers are not allowed to do. On November 15, 1999, the judge directed her to transcribe the notes immediately because of the importance of the testimony. She promised to deliver the transcript but did not. On the evening of November 22, 1999, she told the judge that she had lost her notes in a taxi. The next day she wrote to the branch clerk of court, explaining that she had left the notes in a taxi on the way to her boarding house. She later submitted an affidavit claiming that she had traced the taxi and recovered the notes, and the taxi owner and driver corroborated her.

The judge was skeptical. He suspected the notes had been given to a party in the case, and he cited instances in which his orders appeared to have been leaked, allowing the parties to remove jewelry from a safety deposit box and to evade arrest. He also alleged that the respondent had been seen reading an arrest order with unusual interest, that she had been seen carrying the tape recorder near the office of the petitioners' counsel, and that she had borrowed money from one of the counsels. The respondent denied any malicious intent and said she took the notes home only to expedite their transcription.

At the investigation, the complainant judge did not appear and said he felt no necessity to testify. The branch clerk of court testified that she had told the respondent to hurry the transcription, that the respondent later reported the loss, and that the respondent eventually gave her the recovered notes. A fellow stenographer testified about the respondent getting off on Session Road near the office of the petitioners' counsel. The respondent testified that she often took notes home and that she could not remember the details of that trip.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for taking stenographic notes out of the office without a court order and losing them.
• Whether or not the respondent may be held liable for failing to attach the notes to the record immediately after the hearing.
• Whether or not the one-month preventive suspension imposed by the complainant judge may be counted as service of the penalty.
• Whether or not the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint bars the Supreme Court from proceeding against the respondent.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

No record shall be taken from the clerk's office without an order of the court except as otherwise provided by these rules.

This is the provision the respondent was found to have violated, because stenographic notes form part of the record of the case.

Section 17 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

It shall be the duty of the stenographer who has attended a session of a court either in the morning or in the afternoon, to deliver to the clerk of court, immediately at the close of such morning or afternoon session, all the notes he has taken, to be attached to the record of the case; and it shall likewise be the duty of the clerk to demand that the stenographer comply with said duty. The clerk of court shall stamp the date on which such notes are received by him. When such notes are transcribed the transcript shall be delivered to the clerk, duly initialed on each page thereof, to be attached to the record of the case.

This provision establishes that the notes belong to the record and must be delivered to the clerk, which is why taking them home is a violation.

Section 24 of Rule Fourteen of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law provides:

Preventive suspension is not a punishment or penalty for misconduct in office but is considered to be a preventive measure.

This provision defeats the argument that the complainant's one-month suspension already satisfied the penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent liable for gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court noted that under Administrative Circular Number 24-90, stenographers are given twenty days from the time the notes are taken to transcribe them and attach the transcripts to the record. On the second issue, therefore, the respondent could not be held liable for failing to attach the notes immediately after the hearing, because the circular effectively gave her twenty days. What remained was the violation of Section 14 of Rule 136. The Court reasoned that stenographic notes are part of the record, so their transcription can only be done in the office. The respondent admitted she knew she was not allowed to take the notes home. Her excuse of speedy trial was shaky: the notes were only eleven pages and took her only an hour to transcribe, and she waited twelve days before informing the branch clerk of court of the loss. Even taking her claim at face value, the Court held she was still liable for gross negligence, citing a prior case in which a stenographer who lost her notes in a tricycle was suspended for six months without pay.

On the third issue, the Court held that the one-month suspension was preventive, not punitive, and could not be counted as service of the penalty. On the fourth issue, the Court held that the complainant's withdrawal did not bar the proceeding. The Court stressed that only the Supreme Court has the exclusive power over the discipline of court personnel, and that the complainant, in withdrawing on the ground that the respondent had mended her ways, acted both as prosecutor and as judge. The Court expressed its dismay at this loss of zeal.

Doctrine

A stenographer who takes stenographic notes out of the clerk's office without a court order violates Section 14 of Rule 136, because the notes are part of the record of the case and their transcription can only be done in the office. The duty to transcribe and attach the notes is not instantaneous; Administrative Circular Number 24-90 gives the stenographer twenty days from the time the notes are taken. Losing the notes through carelessness is gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, punishable by suspension. A preventive suspension is not a penalty and cannot be credited as service of the penalty. Finally, the withdrawal of an administrative complaint does not divest the Supreme Court of its exclusive power to discipline court personnel, and a complainant may not act as both prosecutor and judge.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended her for six months without pay, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely, the suspension to take effect immediately upon receipt of a copy of the decision.

Remember This

Memorize this line: stenographic notes are part of the record, so taking them home without a court order is a violation of Section 14 of Rule 136, and losing them is gross negligence. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between preventive suspension and penalty, and the rule that only the Supreme Court may discipline court personnel, even when the complainant withdraws.