Pasco v. Perfecto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Marcelo G. Pasco filed charges against Josefina A. Macalincag, a temporary stenographer, and Loreto Perfecto, a clerk of court. Macalincag was accused of intentionally misleading the Municipal Court Judge and an officer of the court regarding the reporting of accused in Criminal Case No. 12028 under the Laurel Law, and of intentionally delaying the transcription of stenographic notes in the same case. Perfecto was accused of violating the Laurel Law by failing to inform the judge about the accused's non-compliance with reporting requirements, playing tennis during office hours, soliciting bail bonds for consideration, and failing to verify service of pleadings. Procedural History: The verified complaint was filed, and after respondents submitted their answers, the case was referred to Judge Eduardo P. Caguioa for investigation, report, and recommendation. Hearings were conducted, and the investigator submitted his report and recommendations. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the investigator's report and recommendations. The Court approved the exoneration of respondent Macalincag and found respondent Perfecto guilty of specific charges, imposing a fine and reprimand.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Josefina A. Macalincag is guilty of intentionally misleading the court and delaying the transcription of stenographic notes. Whether respondent Loreto Perfecto is guilty of violating the Laurel Law, failing to follow court orders, violating Civil Service Rules and Presidential Decree No. 6, and violating the Rules of Court.
Ruling
Respondent Josefina A. Macalincag is exonerated of all charges and the case against her is dismissed. Respondent Loreto Perfecto is found guilty of specific charges, namely, playing tennis during office hours, failing to report the non-compliance of accused with the Laurel Law, and laxity in supervision of subordinates. He is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month, and is severely reprimanded and warned.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charges against Josefina A. Macalincag: The Court found that the first charge, of intentionally misleading the court, was not proven. The investigator noted that the stenographer merely prepared an excerpt upon the judge's order, and it was not her duty to call the judge's attention to the contents of the excerpt. Her role was purely mechanical. Regarding the second charge of intentionally delaying transcription, the Court acknowledged the respondent's admission of failure to furnish a transcript but considered the circumstances. Macalincag was the sole stenographer in a busy court, handling numerous cases daily. The Court found that the delay was an inevitable result of her heavy workload, not an intentional failure. Therefore, she was exonerated from both charges. On the charges against Loreto Perfecto: The Court found respondent Perfecto guilty of specific violations. Firstly, he failed to report to the Municipal Judge that the accused in Criminal Case No. 12028 were not reporting every two weeks as required by the Laurel Law, as evidenced by the submitted excerpts and original documents. Secondly, he was found guilty of violating Civil Service Rules by playing tennis during office hours on two or three occasions, as testified by the complainant and his witness, despite Perfecto's denial and his witness's testimony. Thirdly, he was found guilty of laxity in supervision of his subordinates, specifically Clerk Teresita de Jesus, which resulted in several pleadings being filed without proper proof of service, contrary to his own instructions. The Court noted that while some charges were not proven, these three were substantiated by the evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the investigator, exonerating the court stenographer from charges of intentionally misleading the court and delaying transcription due to heavy workload. The clerk of court was found guilty of failing to report violations of the Laurel Law, playing tennis during office hours, and lax supervision of subordinates, resulting in a fine equivalent to one month's salary and a severe reprimand. The Court emphasized that while heavy workload can be a mitigating factor for delays, it does not excuse intentional misconduct, and that administrative charges require substantial evidence.