Antimaro v. Amores
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a case for Injunction, Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction, Damages, Attorney’s Fees, with prayer for Restraining Order, filed by the Roman Catholic Church of Butuan City, et al. against Dinda Antimaro, et al. The complainants in this administrative case were the defendants in the underlying civil suit. 2. Procedural History: Following a hearing on December 23, 2003, the complainants, represented by their counsel, sought to obtain a certified true copy of the stenographic notes (TSN) from the respondent, Court Stenographer Roslyn P. Amores. Despite repeated requests and follow-ups, the respondent failed to provide the TSN in a timely manner, leading to the filing of a verified complaint by the complainants on February 12, 2004, for Gross Neglect of Duty, Inefficiency, Incompetence, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Republic Act 6713. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a fine of ₱1,000.00 for dereliction of duty. 3. The Petition: This administrative case was initiated by a verified complaint filed by Pablo Antimaro, et al. against Roslyn P. Amores, a Court Stenographer. The complainants alleged that the respondent's obstinate refusal to furnish them a copy of the TSN from the December 23, 2003 hearing caused a delay in their filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. They asserted that the respondent's excuses for the delay were unfounded. The respondent, in her comment, claimed she was busy with other duties and that the complainants were harassing her with their persistent requests. The OCA found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Court Stenographer Roslyn P. Amores was guilty of dereliction of duty or neglect of duty for failing to timely transcribe her stenographic notes. Whether the excuses provided by the respondent sufficiently justified the delay in transcribing the stenographic notes.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Roslyn P. Amores guilty of simple neglect of duty. She was ordered to pay a fine of One Thousand (₱1,000.00) Pesos and was warned that further commission of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dereliction of duty or neglect of duty: The Court found that Administrative Circular No. 24-90 requires all 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. The respondent failed to comply with this directive, as the TSN was provided approximately two months after the hearing. While the respondent offered justifications such as typing decisions and resolutions, transcribing notes from other cases, and the lengthiness of the notes from the December 23, 2003 hearing, these were not considered compelling reasons to justify the failure to strictly comply with her duty within the prescribed period. The Court emphasized that allowing such excuses would prejudice public service. Therefore, the respondent was found guilty of simple neglect of duty. On whether the excuses provided sufficiently justified the delay: The Court acknowledged the mitigating nature of the respondent's other duties, such as typing court decisions and resolutions, and transcribing notes from other cases. However, it held that these duties, while important, did not absolve her from the responsibility of complying with the mandatory period set by Administrative Circular No. 24-90. The Court reiterated that in the absence of compelling reasons, failure to strictly comply with the duty within the prescribed period must be faulted. The justification offered, while mitigating, did not completely excuse the delay. The Court noted that the respondent did eventually provide the TSN about a month before the scheduled hearing on March 12, 2004, which was considered a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer is found guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to timely transcribe stenographic notes as required by Administrative Circular No. 24-90, despite mitigating circumstances, and is ordered to pay a fine.