Esmeralda-Baroy v. Cosca
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case involves a complaint filed by Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy, the clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, against Juvy N. Cosca, a court stenographer in the same court. The complaint alleges that respondent Cosca violated Rules 136, §§14 and 17, of the Rules of Court by taking stenographic notes from pending cases home and failing to submit the corresponding transcripts and notes despite demands from the judge. 2. Procedural History: The respondent admits to taking the notes home but claims it was to transcribe them due to the distance of her residence from the court. She asserts the complaint was retaliatory, filed after she and other employees initiated an administrative complaint against the complainant and the presiding judge. The Supreme Court's review stems from this administrative complaint and the subsequent findings and recommendations regarding the alleged violations of court rules. 3. The Petition: The petition, in essence, challenges the alleged violations of Rule 136, §§14 and 17. The complainant argues that the respondent improperly removed court records (stenographic notes) from the clerk's office and failed to submit them promptly. The respondent counters that the rules regarding immediate submission of notes were modified by Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which allows for transcription within twenty days, and that her actions were motivated by a desire for efficiency rather than any improper motive. Furthermore, she contends that the complaint was filed in retaliation for her prior administrative action against the complainant and the judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent stenographer violated Rule 136, §§14 and 17 of the Rules of Court by bringing home stenographic notes and failing to submit them promptly. Whether the respondent's actions were justified by Administrative Circular No. 24-90 and the circumstances presented.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent not guilty of violating the cited rules. While warning the respondent to transcribe notes in the office in the future, the Court ordered her to transcribe specific outstanding notes within 100 days and submit them with the original notes within five days thereafter. The Court also noted that the complainant clerk of court was equally at fault for not demanding the immediate submission of the notes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of bringing home stenographic notes and failure to submit promptly: The Court clarified that the requirement in §17 of Rule 136 for stenographers to deliver notes immediately at the close of the session is modified by Administrative Circular No. 24-90. This circular directs stenographers to transcribe all notes and attach the transcripts to the record within twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. Consequently, the duty to deliver notes immediately is understood to be pro tanto modified, requiring delivery only after transcription within the twenty-day period. The Court found it incongruous to require immediate delivery and transcription within twenty days. Therefore, the failure to deliver notes immediately after taking them could not be charged as a violation, especially since the initial fault found by the judge was for failure to transcribe, not to deliver. The Court also noted that the complainant clerk of court had a reciprocal duty to demand the immediate submission of notes, which she failed to do. The Court accorded good faith to the respondent's claim that she brought notes home for transcription due to the need for speedy administration of justice, a practice that, while ideally done in office, could be understood in light of the time constraints imposed by Administrative Circular No. 24-90. On the alleged violation of §14 of Rule 136: The Court found no violation of §14, which prohibits taking records from the clerk's office without an order of the court. The Court reasoned that if the stenographic notes had not yet been attached to the record of the cases, they could not be considered 'records' taken from the clerk's office. The respondent's explanation that she brought the notes home for transcription was deemed plausible in this context. The Court acknowledged that transcription should ideally be done in the office but, considering the time constraints of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 and the respondent's stated intention to help in the speedy administration of justice, it accorded her the presumption of good faith.
Main Doctrine
While stenographers are required to deliver their notes immediately after taking them, this duty is considered modified by Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which allows for transcription within twenty days. The failure to submit notes immediately is not a violation if the transcription is done within the prescribed period, and the clerk of court has a reciprocal duty to demand timely submission.