Ruste v. Selma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Elisa C. Ruste filed a criminal case for forcible abduction. Her lawyer paid respondent Cristina Q. Selma, a Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), ₱2,000 for the transcription of stenographic notes taken during hearings on September 6, 11, and December 5, 2006. Respondent failed to transcribe the notes despite follow-ups. Procedural History: Complainant filed a sworn complaint charging respondent with dereliction of duty. Respondent admitted failure to transcribe but claimed prioritization of other cases and returned the ₱2,000. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty, recommending a ₱2,000 fine due to her more than 22 years of service. The Petition: The case was elevated for resolution regarding the appropriate penalty for the respondent's dereliction of duty.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed dereliction of duty or is guilty of simple neglect of duty. What is the appropriate penalty for the respondent's offense.
Ruling
The respondent is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and is FINED Five Thousand (₱5,000) Pesos. She is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will merit a more severe sanction.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent committed dereliction of duty and is guilty of simple neglect of duty: The respondent admitted to failing to transcribe the stenographic notes for which she was paid. Administrative Circular No. 24-90 mandates stenographers to transcribe all stenographic notes and attach them to the record within twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. The respondent's excuse that she had to prioritize other cases, which were needed for upcoming hearings, was found insufficient. The stenographic notes in question were taken in 2006, and remained untranscribed for over a year even after payment. The Court reiterated that heavy workload is not an adequate excuse for a public servant to be remiss in performing duties, as this would allow similar excuses to evade punishment to the prejudice of public service. The respondent could have sought an extension of time for submission but did not. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. On the appropriate penalty for the respondent's offense: The OCA found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty, which is penalized with suspension for one month and one day to six months for a first offense. However, considering the respondent's more than 22 years of service in the judiciary, the OCA recommended a lighter penalty of a ₱2,000 fine. The Court, taking note of the respondent's long service, decided to impose a fine of Five Thousand (₱5,000) Pesos instead of the minimum penalty of suspension. This decision reflects a consideration for the respondent's tenure while still imposing a penalty for the proven neglect of duty. The respondent was also sternly warned that any repetition of similar acts would result in a more severe sanction.
Main Doctrine
Failure to transcribe stenographic notes within the prescribed period, despite payment, constitutes simple neglect of duty, and while the minimum penalty for a first offense is suspension, a fine may be imposed considering the respondent's length of service.