De Guzman v. Bagadiong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Beatriz E. de Guzman alleged that respondent Sonita T. Bagadiong, a Court Stenographer III, charged her P21.00 per page for transcripts of stenographic notes from Criminal Cases No. 94-133937 and 94-140408. Complainant also alleged that she was charged P800.00 for every hearing, supposedly for transcripts. The complainant questioned the propriety of these charges. Respondent claimed the P21.00 per page charge was for single-spaced pages typed at home due to the complainant's urgent need, whereas her usual charge was P10.00 per double-spaced page. She also stated that transcription was done in addition to her other court duties, that there were only three stenographers in their sala, and that the payment was supposed to be on a 'pakyaw' basis but was reduced from P400.00 because complainant could not afford it. She asserted the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and that she transcribed two sets of notes for which complainant did not pay. Respondent also argued that the matter should have been coursed through the presiding judge, that the fees were a private agreement, and that transcription was her intellectual creation, not subject to administrative action. She further claimed the charges were customary in all courts. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially recommended a fine of P1,000.00 with a stern warning. After respondent's additional comments, the OCA submitted a memorandum recommending a three-month suspension without pay for illegal and exorbitant charging. The Petition: The complainant Beatriz E. de Guzman alleged that respondent Sonita T. Bagadiong, a Court Stenographer III, charged her P21.00 per page for transcripts of stenographic notes from Criminal Cases No. 94-133937 and 94-140408. Complainant also alleged that she was charged P800.00 for every hearing, supposedly for transcripts. The complainant questioned the propriety of these charges.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Court Stenographer Sonita T. Bagadiong is guilty of illegal and exorbitant charging of fees for transcription of stenographic notes. Whether the transcription of stenographic notes is an official duty or a private transaction.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Sonita T. Bagadiong guilty of illegal and exorbitant charging of fees for transcription of stenographic notes. The Court ruled that the transcription of stenographic notes is an official duty mandated by the Rules of Court and administrative circulars, not a private transaction. Consequently, respondent was suspended from office without pay for a period of two (2) months, with a stern warning against repetition of similar offenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal and exorbitant charging of fees: The Court held that respondent's charge of P21.00 per page for single-spaced transcripts, and the alleged P800.00 per hearing, were in violation of Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 31-90. This provision clearly sets the fees for transcription at P5.00 per page of not less than two hundred fifty words before appeal, and P3.00 per page after appeal, with half of the charges going to the court and the other half to the stenographer. The Court explicitly rejected respondent's defense of actual practice charging P10.00 per double-spaced page, stating that any violation of the cited provision makes the offender administratively liable. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust and all public officers must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, and efficiency, condemning any conduct that diminishes faith in the judiciary. On the issue of transcription as an official duty versus a private transaction: The Court found respondent's argument that transcription is a mere 'addition' to her duties and that it constitutes a private transaction to be erroneous. Paragraph 1 of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 mandates that stenographers are enjoined to faithfully comply with Rule 136, Section 17, par. 1 of the Rules of Court, which requires them to deliver all stenographic notes taken to the Clerk of Court immediately after the session, and to have these notes transcribed and attached to the record within twenty (20) days. The Court stressed that stenographic notes are official documents forming part of the record of a case. Respondent's act of bringing notes home without court authorization and her perception of transcription as an 'intellectual creation' and a private transaction clearly undermined the judiciary's thrust of serving the public. The Court reiterated the principle that court stenographers have a primary obligation to serve the public, even at the sacrifice of personal interest, and should not create the impression that they are doing litigants a favor when providing transcripts.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer is administratively liable for illegal and exorbitant charging of fees for transcription of stenographic notes, as such fees are regulated by the Rules of Court and applicable administrative circulars, and the transcription is an official duty, not a private transaction.