SPS. ARNULFO & LORNA POSESANO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL VIRTUDAZO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
SINGH, J.:
“x x x x x x
1) That she received the Notice of Resolution of this Honorable Court dated August 18, 2014, on September 19, 2014, ordering the withholding of her salary in view of the latter’s failure to comply its (sic) directive to submit the Transcript of Stenographic Notes of witness Huberto Virtudazo, taken by stenographer Nenette A. Layno on February 1, 2006;
2) That the undersigned was not informed by the receiving clerk that there was an order from this Honorable Court directing the then Clerk of Court to produce the TSN of the above-mentioned witness because the receiving clerk attached the said resolution without reading its contents;
3) That the undersigned was surprised she received the latest resolution ordering her salaries to be withheld;
4) That she respectfully and humbly requests that the said order be lifted and set aside because she cannot do anything with the case considering that the Stenographer who took down its proceedings was already dropped from the Roles of Employees (sic), per resolution issued by the Supreme Court dated April 23, 2012, which resolution was already attached by the undersigned in her previous explanations to other appealed cases which the undersigned was made to explain; That in this particular case, the undersigned was able to locate the stenographic notes but it was not TRANSCRIBED;
5) That it would be very unfair if the salary of the undersigned be withheld for the negligence of others considering that she was only designated as Acting Clerk of Court after these cases were appealed to this Honorable Court, and the case records will show that it was then Clerk of Court Atty. Domingo P. De Castro who transmitted the case on appeal;
6) That the undersigned is a Court Legal Researcher and at present is not receiving any allowance from the Supreme Court even if she already assumed all the responsibilities of the already retired Clerk of Court;
7) That the undersigned has likewise attached to this motion her manifestation and/or letter explanation as her compliance with other appealed cases where her explanation was required, and to prove that she really exerted efforts to comply the same, but all these proved futile.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully requested of this Honorable Court that its order directing the withholding of her salary be lifted and/or set aside.
OTHER remedies, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
x x x x x x”
Considering that the stenographic notes of Huberto C. Virtudazo’s testimony, as manifested by Ms. Perez-Bawagan herself, were located, this Court hereby ORDERS the concerned Acting Clerk of Court to have the same TRANSCRIBED and submit the transcription to this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. The August 18, 2014 Resolution,[2] in so far as the withholding of the salary of Ms. Perez-Bawagan is concerned, is hereby REITERATED until compliance with this resolution by the concerned Acting Clerk of Court is made.
The Court notes that as the Acting Clerk of Court, Ms. Perez-Bawagan should not have waited for this Court to issue this order to transcribe the notes she located, knowing the significance of the same and being fully cognizant of this Court’s prior directives. It must also be pointed out that Ms. Perez-Bawagan took time and effort to explain in other cases the reason for her non-compliance, but ignored the prior resolutions in this particular case.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action and implementation.
SO ORDERED.
Boria, Ch., and Badelles, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[2] Id., pp. 30-32.