Mendoza v. Eclavea
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Alfredo T. Mendoza charged respondent Francisco C. Eclavea, a court stenographer, with two offenses: (1) transcribing stenographic notes of testimony taken by another stenographer without court authority, and (2) attaching this unauthorized transcript to the records of Naturalization Case No. 28, making it appear as part of the official record. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Calauag, Quezon, for investigation. The Investigating Judge found no bad faith on the part of the respondent, noting that the transcript was made before the dispute between Mendoza and Domingo Reyes arose and that the respondent believed he was helping preserve family harmony. The Investigating Judge concluded that the respondent's only fault was failing to seek court permission and recommended a reprimand. The Petition: This resolution addresses the administrative complaint filed against the respondent stenographer before the Supreme Court, based on the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court stenographer committed an offense by transcribing stenographic notes taken by another stenographer without court authority. Whether the respondent court stenographer committed an offense by attaching the unauthorized transcript to the official court records.
Ruling
The respondent court stenographer is reprimanded with a stern admonition that a repetition of a similar act will be dealt with more severely. The Court found that the respondent erred in transcribing the stenographic notes without authority, which constitutes a violation of office regulations and insubordination.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of transcribing stenographic notes without authority: The Court held that respondent Francisco C. Eclavea erred when he transcribed the stenographic notes of the testimony of Gregorio Uy Un without the authority of the Court. As a court stenographer, he ought to know that only the court can grant him the authority to transcribe stenographic notes taken by another stenographer. His failure to obtain such authority was, at the very least, a violation of office regulations. This violation can be classified as insubordination and considered a light offense pursuant to paragraph III, subparagraph C, No. 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 1970 of the Civil Service Commission. The Court noted that the respondent's act of transcribing the notes was done openly and he indicated portions he could not decipher. The Investigating Judge found no bad faith, as the transcription occurred before the case between Mendoza and Domingo Reyes was filed, and the respondent believed he was fostering family harmony. However, the lack of court authority remained a violation. On the issue of attaching the unauthorized transcript to the records: While the complaint mentioned this, the Court's resolution focused on the act of unauthorized transcription as the primary offense. The Court agreed with the Investigating Judge that the respondent's only fault was his failure to ask the permission of the Court before transcribing the stenographic notes. The Court did not find malice or intent to deceive in the respondent's actions, particularly in attaching the transcript to the records. The respondent allegedly attached the transcript to the records and returned them to the Clerk-In-Charge after transcribing them, indicating portions he could not decipher. The Investigating Judge found nothing in the respondent's act that would suggest malice. The Court's reprimand was based on the violation of office regulations and insubordination stemming from the unauthorized transcription itself, rather than a finding of falsification or intent to mislead by attaching it to the record.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer is prohibited from transcribing stenographic notes taken by another stenographer without the express authority of the court. Such an act is considered a violation of office regulations and may be classified as insubordination, a light offense. While long service and a clean record can be mitigating factors in determining the penalty, the offense itself warrants disciplinary action, typically a reprimand, with a stern admonition against repetition.