The Supreme Court ruled that a court stenographer’s failure to safeguard stenographic notes, a crucial part of court records, constitutes gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This decision underscores the high standard of care expected of court personnel in handling official documents. The Court emphasized that stenographers play a vital role in the judicial process, and their negligence can significantly impact the administration of justice. This ruling reaffirms the importance of diligence and fidelity in the performance of duties within the Philippine judicial system, ensuring accountability and maintaining the integrity of court records.

When Negligence Undermines Justice: A Stenographer’s Lost Notes

This case revolves around Josefina F. Delim, a Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Baguio City, and the administrative complaint filed against her by Judge Antonio C. Reyes. The complaint alleged insubordination, gross dishonesty, and gross negligence stemming from the loss of stenographic notes she had taken during a hearing in Special Proceedings No. 704-R, a case concerning the estate of the deceased spouses Gelacio J. Munsayac and Vicenta F. Munsayac. The central legal question is whether Delim’s actions constituted a breach of her duties as a court stenographer and warranted disciplinary action, considering the sensitive nature of court records and the potential impact of their loss on the judicial proceedings.

The facts of the case reveal that Delim was the stenographer on duty during the November 11, 1999 hearing. Judge Reyes instructed her to transcribe the notes immediately, given the importance of the witness testimony. However, Delim failed to deliver the transcript and, on November 22, 1999, reported that she had lost the notes, claiming she left them in a taxi. This prompted Judge Reyes to demand an explanation within 48 hours, which Delim complied with by submitting an affidavit asserting she had recovered the notes. Judge Reyes remained skeptical, suspecting the notes might have been given to one of the parties involved in the case. This suspicion arose from previous instances where orders issued by the judge appeared to have been leaked, allowing certain parties to evade legal consequences. The situation escalated when Judge Reyes received information suggesting Delim might have been seen with counsel for the opposing party and had borrowed money from one of the counsels involved.

Despite these serious allegations, Judge Reyes later attempted to withdraw the administrative complaint, citing Delim’s improved conduct and conscientiousness. He felt that the one-month suspension he had already imposed was a sufficient penalty. However, the Supreme Court, recognizing the gravity of the charges, decided to proceed with the investigation. The Court redocketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter and tasked Executive Judge Nelsonida Ulat-Marrero of the RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet, with conducting a thorough investigation and providing a report and recommendation.

The investigation involved gathering evidence and testimonies from various individuals. Delim submitted her explanation, affidavit, and supporting affidavits from the taxi owner and driver who purportedly found and returned the missing notes. Judge Reyes, however, declined to testify, maintaining that he felt no necessity to do so, given his earlier motion to withdraw the complaint. Despite his absence, the investigation proceeded, with testimonies from Atty. Mayflor Heo, the Branch Clerk of Court, and Milagros Aranda, another stenographer at the RTC. Atty. Heo testified about the urgency of transcribing the notes and Delim’s initial report of their loss, while Aranda provided information suggesting Delim may have been near the office of the opposing party’s counsel. Delim defended herself, claiming she took the notes home to expedite the transcription due to the court’s speedy trial policy, though she admitted knowing that stenographers were not allowed to do so.

The Investigating Judge found Delim guilty of violating Rule 136, §§14 and 17 of the Rules of Court, specifically for taking stenographic notes home without authorization, and for misleading her superiors by claiming to be transcribing the notes when they were lost. Rule 136 provides clear guidelines on the handling of court records:

SEC. 14. Taking of record from the clerk’s office. — No record shall be taken from the clerk’s office without an order of the court except as otherwise provided by these rules. However, the Solicitor General or any of his assistants, the provincial fiscal or his deputy, and the attorneys de oficio shall be permitted, upon proper receipt, to withdraw from the clerk’s office the record of any cases in which they are interested.

The Investigating Judge also cited Section 17 of Rule 136, emphasizing the stenographer’s duty to deliver notes to the clerk of court immediately after each session to be attached to the case record. The Investigating Judge initially recommended a thirty-day suspension, considering the violations stemmed from a single wrongful act and acknowledging Judge Reyes’ observation of Delim’s improved performance. However, the Supreme Court ultimately disagreed with this recommendation, emphasizing the severity of Delim’s actions and the need for a more substantial penalty.

The Supreme Court highlighted the complainant’s initial perception that this case involved more than just the unauthorized removal of stenographic notes. Judge Reyes believed it involved a betrayal of the institution and a potential compromise of sensitive information. He accused Delim of leaking information to parties involved in the case and receiving money from them. The Court expressed disappointment in Judge Reyes’ attempt to withdraw the complaint, noting that such serious charges should not be left unresolved. The Court emphasized that it was not within the judge’s prerogative to determine the adequacy of the penalty, especially when dealing with serious allegations of misconduct.

The Supreme Court then addressed the charge that Delim failed to attach the notes to the case record immediately after the hearing. They cited Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which effectively grants stenographers twenty days to deliver transcribed notes to the clerk of court. However, the Court emphasized that Delim still violated Rule 136, § 14, which prohibits the removal of court records without a court order. Since stenographic notes are part of the case record, their transcription must occur within the office. The Court found Delim’s explanation for taking the notes home unconvincing, particularly given the relatively short time it would have taken to transcribe them. Her testimony revealed inconsistencies and a lack of credibility, further undermining her defense.

Delim’s failure to inform the branch clerk of court about the loss of the notes for twelve days raised further suspicion. The Supreme Court referenced the case of Alivia v. Nieto, where a court stenographer who lost notes was suspended for six months without pay. The Court reasoned that Delim’s actions warranted a similar penalty. They deemed the Investigating Judge’s recommendation of a thirty-day suspension insufficient, especially since Judge Reyes’ initial suspension was merely preventive. The Supreme Court emphasized that only it has the constitutional authority to discipline lower court personnel. It is important to note that,

Preventive suspension is not a punishment or penalty for misconduct in office but is considered to be a preventive measure.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the stenographer’s act of taking stenographic notes home without permission and subsequently losing them constituted gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court found the stenographer guilty of gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended her from office for six months without pay.
Why was the stenographer penalized?	The stenographer was penalized for violating Rule 136, § 14 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits the removal of court records without a court order, and for failing to safeguard important stenographic notes.
What is Rule 136, § 14 of the Rules of Court?	Rule 136, § 14 states that no court record shall be taken from the clerk’s office without an order of the court, except as otherwise provided by the rules. This aims to maintain the integrity and security of court records.
Can a judge withdraw an administrative complaint against a court employee?	While a judge can attempt to withdraw a complaint, the Supreme Court has the final authority to decide on administrative matters involving court personnel and may proceed with an investigation regardless of the judge’s withdrawal.
What is the significance of stenographic notes in court proceedings?	Stenographic notes are crucial records of court proceedings, serving as the official basis for transcripts and ensuring accurate documentation of testimonies, arguments, and rulings. Their loss can impede the judicial process.
What does ‘conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service’ mean?	‘Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service’ refers to actions by a government employee that undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the government and its operations. This includes any behavior that reflects poorly on the integrity of the service.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the Investigating Judge’s recommendation?	The Supreme Court rejected the Investigating Judge’s recommendation because it deemed the proposed penalty of a thirty-day suspension insufficient, considering the severity of the stenographer’s actions and the need to maintain the integrity of court records.

This case serves as a reminder to all court personnel of the importance of upholding their duties with utmost diligence and integrity. The unauthorized removal and subsequent loss of stenographic notes not only violates established rules and regulations but also undermines the integrity of the judicial process. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that those entrusted with safeguarding court records must be held accountable for their actions, ensuring the fair and efficient administration of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES VS. JOSEFINA F. DELIM, A.M. No. P-01-1474, October 26, 2001