Alcover v. Bacatan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: SPO2 Jonathan M. Alcover Sr., convicted of murder, filed a complaint against Edgardo Y. Bacatan, a Court Stenographer III, for allegedly failing to make transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) available. Complainant alleged that respondent deliberately delayed the release of the TSN of witness Christian Paras' testimony, taken on September 18, 2001, to prevent complainant from strengthening his defense. Complainant claimed he was only furnished the first half of the transcript in June 2004 and the last part in July 2004, despite having paid the required fees. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to comment. Respondent denied tampering with the TSN or deliberately delaying its release, stating that complainant was furnished some transcripts during the trial and later reminded to claim others. He admitted releasing the first part of Paras' testimony up to page 32 after the decision and the second part (pages 33-49) in late June or early July 2004, explaining that the remaining parts were still in draft form. The Petition: The complainant charged respondent with failure to make the TSN available and alleged that the delay indicated the transcripts were altered.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Edgardo Y. Bacatan is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to transcribe stenographic notes within the prescribed period. Whether respondent Edgardo Y. Bacatan tampered with the transcripts of stenographic notes.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Edgardo Y. Bacatan guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended him for two (2) months without pay, with a stern warning. The charge of tampering with transcripts was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of simple neglect of duty: The Court affirmed the OCA's recommendation, holding respondent liable for simple neglect of duty. Administrative Circular No. 24-90 mandates that all stenographers transcribe stenographic notes within twenty (20) days from the date they are taken. In this case, the testimony of Witness Paras was taken on September 18, 2001, but respondent admittedly finished transcribing the notes only in July 2004, resulting in an inexcusable delay of two years and nine months. The Court rejected respondent's excuses of heavy workload and the complainant's alleged failure to claim transcripts, stating that a heavy workload is not an adequate excuse for remissness in duty. Furthermore, Administrative Circular No. 24-90 imposes the duty to transcribe regardless of demand from the parties. The delay prejudiced public service and the administration of justice, violating the norm of public trust. On the issue of tampering with transcripts: The Court dismissed the allegation that respondent intentionally and maliciously delayed the transcription to tamper with it for lack of substantial evidence. Citing Alfonso v. Ignacio, the Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of substantiating charges with substantial evidence. Mere allegations, conjectures, or suppositions are insufficient to prove tampering. As no independent evidence was presented to show that respondent altered the TSN, this charge was dismissed for lack of merit.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer's failure to transcribe stenographic notes within the prescribed period, without adequate justification, constitutes simple neglect of duty, violating the norm of public trust and diminishing faith in the judiciary. Allegations of tampering require substantial evidence and cannot be based on mere conjecture.