Gamolo v. Beligolo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a sworn complaint filed by Rube K. Gamolo, Jr., Clerk of Court IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, against Reba A. Beligolo, a Court Stenographer II in the same court. The complaint alleged gross neglect of duty and inefficiency due to the respondent's failure to transcribe stenographic notes within the prescribed periods, as well as absenteeism and tardiness in violation of established administrative circulars. Procedural History: The complaint was initiated by the Clerk of Court on August 16, 2010, detailing numerous instances where the respondent allegedly failed to submit transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) and transcribe court orders in various criminal and civil cases, with some delays dating back to 2004. The complaint also cited specific dates of tardiness and absences without leave. The respondent, in her comment, denied the allegations, asserting compliance with transcription duties and providing explanations for her attendance issues, including personal circumstances and disputes over the submission of her daily time records. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reviewed the submissions and findings. The Petition: This matter comes before the Court as an administrative case stemming from the complaint filed by the Clerk of Court. The core of the petition is the alleged violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 regarding the timely transcription of stenographic notes and Administrative Circular No. 02-2007 concerning strict observance of working hours. The Court reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including the respondent's explanations and submitted TSNs and orders, and considered the findings of the OCA. The Court ultimately found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty, imposing a fine and issuing a stern admonishment regarding her attendance.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed gross neglect of duty and inefficiency in relation to her duty to transcribe stenographic notes, and whether her actions constitute simple neglect of duty or gross neglect of duty. Whether the respondent committed absenteeism and tardiness based on her failure to observe regular working hours.
Ruling
The Court finds and declares respondent Reba A. Beligolo guilty of simple neglect of duty and fines her in the amount of P5,000.00, with a warning that commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. The Court admonishes respondent for her habitual tardiness and sternly reminds her to strictly observe regular working hours. Charges related to unauthorized leave of absence are dismissed as the leave applications were eventually approved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of gross neglect of duty and inefficiency in transcribing stenographic notes, and the distinction between simple and gross neglect of duty: The Court found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty, not gross neglect. Administrative Circular No. 24-90 requires transcription of stenographic notes within twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. While the respondent claimed to have submitted the TSNs and orders, she failed to establish that these submissions were made within the prescribed period. The issuance of memoranda by the Acting Presiding Judge and the complainant directing her to submit the TSNs and orders served as proof of her non-compliance within the stipulated timeframe. For instance, a memorandum dated July 27, 2010, directed her to explain her failure to transcribe an order dated June 22, 2010, indicating that as of that date, the order had not yet been transcribed. The Court emphasized that the timely submission of TSNs is essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice, and inaction hampers it. However, the Court noted that her failure to submit within the period was not habitual, and she ultimately submitted the required documents. Therefore, her conduct amounted to simple neglect of duty. The Court reiterated that neglect of duty is the failure to give one's attention to a task expected of a public employee. Simple neglect of duty is contrasted from gross neglect, the latter being so serious in character as to endanger or threaten public welfare, due to its gravity or frequency. Gross neglect does not necessarily include wilful neglect or intentional wrongdoing. The imposable penalty for gross neglect of duty is dismissal from the service. Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense, punishable by suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second. In this case, the respondent's failure to submit TSNs within the prescribed period, while a violation, did not reach the level of gross neglect because she ultimately complied and there was no showing of habitual failure or malicious intent. The Court also considered mitigating factors, similar to the case of Seangio v. Parce, where a fine was imposed for simple neglect of duty when no apparent ill or malicious motive was established. On the charge of absenteeism and tardiness: The Court admonished the respondent for her habitual tardiness and sternly reminded her to strictly observe regular working hours. The respondent admitted to being habitually tardy in November 2008 and January 2009. However, her tardiness occurred in different semesters and did not happen in two consecutive months, thus not meeting the definition of habitual tardiness under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998. Regarding the alleged unauthorized leave of absence on specific dates in May and June 2010, the Court noted that the Acting Presiding Judge eventually approved her leave applications. Consequently, the charges related to these absences were dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer found to have failed to submit transcripts of stenographic notes and orders within the prescribed period, despite ultimately submitting them, is guilty of simple neglect of duty, not gross neglect, if there is no showing of habitual failure or malicious intent. Tardiness and absenteeism, if not reaching the threshold of habitual, warrant admonition.