Antimaro v. Amores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants filed a verified complaint against Roslyn P. Amores, a Court Stenographer, for Gross Neglect of Duty, Inefficiency, Incompetence, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Republic Act 6713. The complaint stemmed from respondent's alleged failure to timely transcribe stenographic notes taken during a hearing on December 23, 2003, in Special Civil Case No. 1190. Complainants asserted that this delay prejudiced their filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Procedural History: The verified complaint was filed by the therein defendants of the civil case. The respondent submitted her Comment to the complaint. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the respondent be ordered to pay a fine for dereliction of duty. The Petition: This administrative case originated from a verified complaint filed by parties in a civil case against a court stenographer for alleged gross neglect of duty and violation of Republic Act 6713 due to the failure to timely transcribe stenographic notes. The core of the complaint is the delay in furnishing a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) taken during a hearing on December 23, 2003, which complainants claimed hindered their legal recourse.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Court Stenographer Roslyn P. Amores was guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to transcribe her stenographic notes within the period prescribed by Administrative Circular No. 24-90. Whether the excuses offered by the respondent sufficiently justified the delay in the transcription of the stenographic notes.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Roslyn P. Amores guilty of simple neglect of duty. She was ordered to pay a fine of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos and was warned that commission of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely. The Court considered the respondent's justifications as mitigating circumstances but not sufficient to excuse her failure to comply with her duty within the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Court Stenographer Roslyn P. Amores was guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to transcribe her stenographic notes within the period prescribed by Administrative Circular No. 24-90: The Court held 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 stenographic notes taken on December 23, 2003, were only transcribed and furnished to the complainants on February 17, 2004 (or February 23, 2004, according to complainants' reply), which is significantly beyond the prescribed twenty-day period. The Court emphasized that while it is solicitous of the plight of court stenographers, in the absence of compelling reasons to justify the failure to strictly comply with the duty within the prescribed period, the stenographer must be faulted. Allowing similar excuses without sufficient justification would prejudice public service. Therefore, the respondent was found guilty of simple neglect of duty. On Whether the excuses offered by the respondent sufficiently justified the delay in the transcription of the stenographic notes: The Court acknowledged the respondent's justifications, which included discharging other duties such as typing court resolutions, orders, and decisions, transcribing earlier taken stenographic notes in other cases, and the lengthiness of the notes from the December 23, 2003 proceedings. The Court also noted that December 23, 2003, was the last working day before the Christmas break, and office work resumed after the holidays. However, the Court found these justifications to be mitigating circumstances rather than compelling reasons that would excuse the delay. The Court reiterated that every government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty cannot simply proffer similar excuses to escape punishment, especially when it results in prejudice to public service. The Court found that the respondent's explanation, while considered mitigating, did not absolve her from liability for simple neglect of duty.
Main Doctrine
Court stenographers have a clear duty to transcribe their stenographic notes within the period prescribed by Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which is not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. While the Court acknowledges that stenographers have other duties, such as typing decisions and resolutions, and that notes can be lengthy, these are considered mitigating circumstances rather than justifications for non-compliance. Failure to adhere to this duty without compelling reasons constitutes simple neglect of duty, for which administrative sanctions may be imposed.