Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Davao City, and in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 12 and 15, Davao City
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A judicial audit and physical inventory of pending cases were conducted in various courts in Davao City. During the audit, it was discovered that Civil Case No. 20394, pending before RTC Branch 15, was submitted for decision on December 17, 1998, but could not be decided due to the failure of stenographers to submit the transcripts of stenographic notes. Specifically, Stenographer Olando Apilado failed to transcribe notes from December 3, 1990, and March 18, 1991; Stenographer Sarah Dujali failed to transcribe notes from March 8, 1991; and Stenographer Marianita Bandalan failed to transcribe notes from July 27, 1998. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator directed the concerned stenographers to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. Stenographer Sarah Dujali submitted an explanation and compliance, stating that the case was initially raffled to RTC, Branch 14, where she took notes on March 8, 1991. The case was later transferred to RTC, Branch 15, on March 23, 1995. Dujali claimed she had no knowledge of proceedings after the transfer and only complied with the order to transcribe on September 13, 1999. The Petition: The Court reviewed the explanation of Stenographer Sarah Dujali regarding her failure to timely transcribe stenographic notes.
Issue(s)
Whether Stenographer Sarah Dujali is liable for violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 for her failure to transcribe stenographic notes within the prescribed period.
Ruling
The Court found Court Stenographer Sarah Dujali liable for violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 and ordered her to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00), with a warning that repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of Stenographer Sarah Dujali for violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90: The Court found Dujali's explanation unsatisfactory. Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which took effect on August 1, 1990, mandates all court stenographers to transcribe all stenographic notes and attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. Dujali took the stenographic notes on March 8, 1991, and therefore should have transcribed and submitted them within twenty days from that date. Her explanation that the case was transferred to Branch 15 and that Judge Quitain later directed her to transcribe the notes did not excuse her from her duty to comply with the twenty-day deadline. These events, including the transfer of the case and Judge Quitain's order, occurred years after she took the stenographic notes, and thus did not absolve her from the initial obligation. The Court emphasized that the duty to transcribe notes within the prescribed period is a clear mandate that must be followed by all court stenographers. The failure to provide a valid explanation for the delay beyond the mandated period established her liability. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine and a stern warning against future violations.
Main Doctrine
Court stenographers are mandated to transcribe all stenographic notes and attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. Failure to comply with this mandate, without valid explanation, renders the stenographer liable for violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90.