Opeña v. Luna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Benjamin A. Opeña, counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. C-19052, requested a transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) from respondent Fe Rizalina V. Luna, a Court Stenographer III. The TSN pertained to the September 15, 2000 hearing. Respondent Luna prepared a triple-spaced, 18-page transcript and demanded ₱500.00 as payment. Complainant argued that the payment should be based on the number of pages, not the nature of the case or proceedings. Despite the disagreement, complainant paid the demanded amount due to the urgency of needing the TSN for a hearing the next day. Procedural History: Complainant filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging respondent with grave misconduct. Respondent, in her comment, admitted receiving the ₱500.00 but denied compelling payment, asserting it was common practice among stenographers to charge such an amount for ex parte proceedings, covering multiple copies for various offices and case records. She claimed to have acted in good faith, citing her unblemished 20-year service record. The OCA found respondent's contention misplaced, citing Section 10, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, which fixes the fees for transcription. The OCA recommended a fine of ₱1,000.00, considering the mitigating circumstance of loyal service. The Petition: The case was docketed as a regular administrative matter. Complainant Atty. Opeña manifested his conformity to submit the case on the pleadings. Respondent did not submit a manifestation. After Atty. Opeña's death in July 2003, respondent requested dismissal. The OCA, in its March 17, 2004 memorandum, recommended denial of the dismissal request and reiterated its recommendation for a ₱1,000.00 fine.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Fe Rizalina V. Luna is guilty of grave misconduct for demanding and receiving ₱500.00 for a transcript of stenographic notes. Whether the alleged customary practice of stenographers in charging for ex parte proceedings can justify demanding an amount in excess of the rates fixed by the Rules of Court. Whether the death of the complainant warrants the dismissal of the administrative case.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Fe Rizalina V. Luna guilty of violating Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and orders her to pay a fine of ₱2,000.00 with a warning of a more severe penalty for another infraction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave misconduct: The Court affirmed the OCA's finding that respondent Luna was guilty of violating Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The Court held that while respondent denied compelling payment, the circumstances indicated that complainant Atty. Opeña had no choice but to pay the exorbitant amount demanded due to the urgency of the TSN for the hearing scheduled the following day. This act of demanding ₱500.00 for an 18-page transcript was tantamount to compelling payment, constituting grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that everyone in the judiciary bears a heavy responsibility and must steer clear of situations casting suspicion on their conduct, as the image of the judiciary is mirrored in their actions. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees enjoins government service to extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service, and to refrain from acts contrary to law, good morals, and good customs. On the justification of customary practice: The Court rejected respondent's assertion that a customary practice among stenographers to charge a specific amount for ex parte hearings could justify demanding an amount in excess of the rates fixed by the Rules of Court. The Court pointed out that Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court clearly fixes uniform rates for transcription of stenographic notes, without distinction as to whether the proceedings were ex parte or otherwise. The Court reiterated the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one, especially those expected to be aware of its provisions due to their official duties. Respondent could not seek shelter from an alleged customary practice that contravened a clear legal provision. On the dismissal due to complainant's death: The Court ruled that the death of the complainant, Atty. Opeña, did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative case. The Court clarified that once an administrative complaint is given due course, the complainant is reduced to a mere complaining witness, and the government becomes the real aggrieved party. Administrative proceedings against public employees are imbued with public interest because public office is a public trust. Therefore, the Court's disciplinary jurisdiction continues to exist until the final resolution of the case, irrespective of the complainant's demise. The need to maintain public faith and confidence in the government should not be distracted by the absence of the complainant.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer who demands and receives an amount for transcription of stenographic notes in excess of the rates fixed by the Rules of Court, despite the complainant's objection, is guilty of grave misconduct, as such act diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary. The alleged customary practice or ignorance of the law does not excuse the violation.