EN BANC
A.M. No. P-19-3989 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4524-P], June 25, 2019
RENATO NUEZCA, COMPLAINANT, v. MERLITA R. VERCELES, STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 49, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
A great number of "Inherited Cases" (those heard and tried by Judges but left undecided due to resignation, retirement, and transfer/promotion to new assignments) has accumulated and cannot be decided or resolved promptly by incumbent Judges appointed or designated to replace their predecessors because of lack of transcripts of stenographic notes caused by the death or the absence of the recording stenographers who have resigned or retired and whose whereabouts are unknown. This has delayed review of appealed cases as the records are transmitted without the required transcripts of stenographic notes.32Respondent's duties greatly affect the courts' timely resolution of cases. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 directs court stenographers to attach the transcript to the case records not later than 20 days from the time the notes were taken:
Sec. 17. Stenographers — It shall be the duty of the stenographer who has attended a session of 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 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 records of the case.It was incumbent upon respondent to ensure that the transcript of stenographic notes was properly taken and expeditiously submitted, even without request of the court.
(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.33 (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.We underscore that respondent took four (4) years to comply with the court's order to provide the transcribed stenographic notes. Even then, she completed the transcript of stenographic notes of only one (1) of the two (2) witnesses. She was constantly given the chance to comply, the case was reset several times, and the retaking of the witnesses' testimonies was repeatedly ordered. All these caused years' worth of delay in the promulgation of the judgment in the criminal case. Certainly, respondent's conduct falls short of her mandate to properly and diligently perform her official duties.
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him or her. Gross neglect of duty is such neglect which, "from the gravity of the case or the frequency of instances, becomes so serious in its character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare." In GSIS v. Manalo:Respondent's duty is categorical. She cannot use misplacing her original notes as an excuse, considering that the court has repeatedly allowed the retaking of testimonies.
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence 'refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wil[l]fully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property.' It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.37 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
The Court has ruled, in a number of cases, that the failure to submit the TSNs within the period prescribed under Administrative Circular No. 24-90 constitutes gross neglect of duty. Gross neglect of duty is classified as a grave offense and punishable by dismissal even if for the first offense pursuant to Section 52 (A) (2) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.Under the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, gross neglect of duty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service on the first offense.41 The penalty of dismissal includes other accessory penalties: (1) cancellation of eligibility; (2) perpetual disqualification from holding any other public office; (3) prohibition from taking civil service examinations; and (4) forfeiture of retirement benefits.42 However, terminal leave benefits and personal contributions to retirement benefits system shall not be forfeited.43 Physical illness is not a mitigating circumstance in offenses punishable by dismissal from the service.44
This is not the first time that Montalla was charged with neglect of duty for delay in the submission of the TSNs. He was previously warned of a repetition of the same or similar infraction. . . .
. . . His utter disregard of the court directives and the reminders from his superiors and his lapses in the performance of his duty as a court stenographer caused delay in the speedy disposition of the case. This is no longer simple neglect of duty. Montalla, in repeatedly failing to submit the required TSNs for several years now, no longer deserves the compassion and understanding of the Court.
As a stenographer, Montalla should realize that the performance of his duty is essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice, and his inaction hampers the administration of justice and erodes public faith in the judiciary. The Court has expressed its dismay over the negligence and indifference of persons involved in the administration of justice. No less than the Constitution mandates that public officers must serve the people with utmost respect and responsibility. Public office is a public trust, and Montalla has without a doubt violated this trust by his failure to fulfill his duty as a court stenographer.40 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
5. No stenographer shall be allowed to resign from the service or allowed to retire optionally without having transcribed all transcript of stenographic notes taken by him [or her]. A stenographer due for compulsory retirement must submit to the Judge/Clerk all pending transcribed stenographic notes, three (3) months before retirement date.We deny respondent's application for optional retirement. She is directed to clear her pending transcript of stenographic notes. She will not receive any form of payment from the court until there is a verified statement that all transcribed stenographic notes have been delivered to the court, to be confirmed by the Presiding Judge of Branch 49, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.
No terminal leave or retirement pay shall be paid to a stenographer without a verified statement that all his [or her] transcript of stenographic notes have been transcribed and delivered to the proper court, confirmed by the Executive Judge of the Court concerned.45
Very truly yours, (SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2 Id. at 2.
3 Id. at 2-3.
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 13.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 14 and 45.
10 Id. at 14.
11 Id. at 3.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 15.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 2.
16 Id. at 1.
17 Id. at 5.
18 Id. at 30.
19 Id. at 6-10.
20 Id. at 7-8.
21 Id. at 8.
22 Id. at 9.
23 Id. at 16-17.
24 Id. at 16.
25 Id. at 16-17.
26 Id. at 17.
27 Id. at 16.
28 Id. at 44-46.
29 Id. at 46.
30 Id. at 45.
31 Id. at 45-46.
32 Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 (1990).
33 Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 (1990), amending Rule 136, Section 17 of the Rules of Court.
34 Administrative Matter No. 03-06-13-SC (2004), sec. 1 states:
SECTION 1. This Code of Conduct for Court Personnel shall apply to all personnel in the judiciary who are not justices or judges. Court personnel who are no longer employed in the Judiciary but who acquired, while still so employed, confidential information as defined in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Canon II on Confidentiality are subject to Section 4 thereof.
35Judge Perfecto v. Esidera, 764 Phil. 384, 406 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing J. Carpio, Dissenting Opinion in Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411, 651 (2003) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
36 808 Phil. 389 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
37 Id. at 403.
38 Id.
39 667 Phil. 560 (2011) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
40 Id. at 564-565.
41 RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE (2017), Rule 10, sec. 50(A)(2).
42 RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE (2017), Rule 10, sec. 57(A).
43 RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE (2017), Rule 10, sec. 57(A).
44 RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE (2017), Rule 10, sec. 53.
45 Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 (1990).