Nuezca v. Verceles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Renato Nuezca, father of the private complainant in Criminal Case No. U-12300 (People v. Romeo Viernes), filed an administrative complaint for gross neglect of duty against Merlita R. Verceles, a Stenographer III at Branch 49, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. The criminal case, involving reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries, was submitted for decision on July 30, 2009, after the defense presented no evidence. The Branch Clerk of Court was directed to ensure the completeness of the transcript of stenographic notes. Procedural History: On December 15, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the retaking of testimonies due to the absence of transcripts. Verceles undertook to submit the complete transcript by May 2, 2011, but failed to appear on the scheduled hearing. The case was postponed multiple times. On June 27, 2013, the RTC ordered the retaking of testimonies of Dr. Ferdinand Florendo and Tracy Sinagub, instructing Verceles to retake proceedings from April 24, 2003, and May 6, 2003. Verceles submitted only Sinagub's transcript, failing to submit Dr. Florendo's. Subsequently, the Prosecutor moved for the inhibition of Presiding Judge Tita R. Villarin, alleging she was Verceles' sister. The RTC forwarded the criminal case records for reassignment. The Letter-Complaint was received by the Office of the Chief Justice on October 19, 2015, and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on December 7, 2015. Verceles was directed to comment on January 13, 2016, and sought an extension. In her Comment, Verceles attributed her failure to old age, deteriorating health (knee and back pain, hearing difficulties, high blood pressure, migraines), and lack of conducive office space for her notes. She claimed she reported the issue to the Presiding Judge and Legal Researcher, leading to the order for retaking testimonies. She also sought assistance from the witness and the hospital, but they had no copies. Verceles filed a Request for Optional Retirement on April 15, 2016, citing health reasons. The OCA, in its April 30, 2018 Report, recommended Verceles' dismissal for gross neglect of duty, noting her previous penalties for similar offenses (reprimand, fine, suspension). The Petition: The administrative complaint, filed by Renato Nuezca, alleged gross neglect of duty by Merlita R. Verceles for her repeated failure to submit the transcript of stenographic notes in Criminal Case No. U-12300, despite court orders and multiple postponements. The core argument was that Verceles' inaction caused undue delay in the disposition of the criminal case, thereby violating her sworn duties as a court stenographer and reflecting poorly on the judiciary.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Court Stenographer III Merlita R. Verceles should be dismissed from service for gross neglect of duty in failing to submit the transcript of stenographic notes in Criminal Case No. U-12300; and Whether respondent's request for optional retirement should be granted.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Court Stenographer III Merlita R. Verceles GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and DISMISSED her from service. She was PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from holding any other public office. Her Request for Optional Retirement was DENIED, and her retirement benefits were FORFEITED. She was directed to comply with pending responsibilities before the RTC before receiving any form of payment pertaining to non-forfeited benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Gross Neglect of Duty: The Court held that respondent Verceles' failure to submit the transcript of stenographic notes in Criminal Case No. U-12300, despite repeated orders and postponements spanning several years, constituted gross neglect of duty. A stenographer's duty to transcribe and submit notes is crucial for the timely resolution of cases, and Verceles' prolonged inaction, which delayed the promulgation of judgment since 2009, significantly hampered the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that Verceles' explanations of old age, sickness, and misplaced notes were unacceptable, especially considering her previous penalties for similar offenses, which demonstrated a pattern of indifference to her responsibilities. The Court reiterated that physical illness is not a mitigating circumstance for offenses punishable by dismissal, and that court personnel are held to a higher standard of diligence and responsibility. The repeated failure to submit TSNs, as established in jurisprudence, is classified as gross neglect of duty, a grave offense warranting dismissal. The Court affirmed the recommendation of the Court Administrator for dismissal from service. Gross neglect of duty is a grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by dismissal even on the first offense. The penalty of dismissal carries accessory penalties, including perpetual disqualification from holding public office and forfeiture of retirement benefits, except for the money value of accrued leave credits. The Court found that Verceles' conduct demonstrated a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform her duty, characterized by a conscious indifference to the consequences of her omissions. On the Request for Optional Retirement: The Court denied Verceles' request for optional retirement, citing Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90. This circular explicitly states that no stenographer shall be allowed to resign or retire optionally without having transcribed all stenographic notes taken by them. Furthermore, no terminal leave or retirement pay shall be paid without a verified statement that all transcribed stenographic notes have been delivered to the court, confirmed by the Executive Judge. Verceles was directed to clear her pending responsibilities before any payment of non-forfeited benefits could be processed.
Main Doctrine
The repeated failure of a court stenographer to submit transcribed stenographic notes within the prescribed period, despite repeated directives and postponements, constitutes gross neglect of duty. This offense is punishable by dismissal from service, including perpetual disqualification from holding public office and forfeiture of retirement benefits, as it significantly delays the administration of justice and erodes public faith in the judiciary. Physical illness is not a valid excuse or mitigating circumstance for such dereliction of duty.