Ongkiko, Kalaw, Dizon, Panga & Velasco Law Offices v. Sangil-Makasiar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, a law office, filed a verified letter-complaint against respondent Stella Marie S. Sangil-Makasiar, a Court Stenographer, for dereliction of duty and negligence. The charge stemmed from the respondent's failure to transmit the transcript of stenographic notes of a trial conducted on November 15, 1993, in Criminal Case No. 93-129342, where the accused was convicted of Kidnapping for Ransom. Procedural History: The accused filed a Notice of Appeal on November 29, 1993. The appellant's brief could not be prepared due to the missing transcript. This led to a motion to suspend the period to file the brief, which was granted, and the respondent stenographer was required to explain her failure to transmit the transcript. The respondent requested and was granted extensions of time to complete the transcription, initially asking for thirty (30) days, then another thirty (30) days, and finally ten (10) days. Despite these extensions and a warning that no further extensions would be granted, the respondent failed to submit the transcripts. Consequently, her salary was withheld, and she was given a non-extendible period of ten (10) days to submit the transcripts. She again failed to comply and requested a final ten-day extension. Meanwhile, the complainant's motion for extension to file the appellant's brief was granted for forty-five (45) days, but the brief could still not be prepared without the transcript, prompting another motion to suspend the period. The Petition: The complainant contended that the respondent was grossly negligent in performing her duties, violating Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, and that despite the lapse of almost two years, the transcript remained unsubmitted, causing the accused to remain in jail.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court Stenographer is guilty of dereliction of duty and negligence for failing to timely transcribe and transmit stenographic notes. Whether the respondent's workload and domestic responsibilities constitute a valid excuse for her failure to comply with court orders and rules.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of dereliction of duty and ordered her to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00), with a stern warning against repetition of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent Court Stenographer is guilty of dereliction of duty and negligence for failing to timely transcribe and transmit stenographic notes: The Court found the respondent guilty of dereliction of duty. Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, as updated by Administrative Circular No. 24-90, mandate the timely transcription and transmission of stenographic notes. Administrative Circular No. 24-90 specifically requires stenographers to transcribe all notes and attach them to the record not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. In this case, the stenographic notes were taken on November 15, 1993, and the respondent admitted to transcribing them only on June 28, 1995, submitting them on June 29, 1995. This constituted a delay of one (1) year and seven (7) months, a clear violation of the circular. The delay directly prejudiced the appellant's right to have his brief prepared and filed on time, thereby impeding the appellate process. On whether the respondent's workload and domestic responsibilities constitute a valid excuse for her failure to comply with court orders and rules: The Court held that while it may sympathize with the respondent's heavy workload and domestic responsibilities, these are not adequate excuses for remissness in the diligent performance of her duties as a public servant. Allowing such excuses would prejudice public service, as it would provide a convenient escape for employees charged with negligence. The Court noted that the respondent was given multiple extensions, totaling three, by the Court, yet still failed to comply. The Court emphasized that it had been lenient, not overly strict, and that the respondent's failure to comply after almost two years demonstrated a clear disregard for her obligations.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer is found guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to timely transcribe and transmit stenographic notes, despite multiple extensions granted, as such failure significantly impedes the progression of appeals and public service.