In Virginia D. Seangio v. Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Manila, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a court stenographer for inaccuracies and delays in transcribing stenographic notes. The Court found the stenographer guilty of simple neglect of duty, emphasizing the importance of accuracy and timeliness in recording court proceedings. This ruling reinforces the accountability of court personnel in ensuring the faithful and efficient administration of justice, highlighting that even in the face of heavy workloads, diligence and adherence to prescribed procedures are paramount.

Missed Notes, Missed Deadlines: When Transcription Errors Lead to Accountability

The case arose from a complaint filed by Virginia D. Seangio against Julieta F. Parce, a court stenographer, alleging discrepancies and delays in the transcription of stenographic notes for a case involving the intestate estate of Segundo C. Seangio. Seangio, the administratrix of the estate, claimed that Parce’s transcript contained numerous variations and discrepancies from the actual testimonies. She also pointed out that a page was missing from one transcript and that Parce had re-used a tape recording from a previous hearing. These allegations prompted an investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which recommended that Parce be held liable for simple neglect of duty. Parce defended herself by citing a heavy workload and inadvertent errors, but these defenses did not fully absolve her of responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s analysis began with an examination of the duties and responsibilities of court stenographers. The Court emphasized that stenographers play a vital role in the judicial process. They are responsible for accurately recording court proceedings and producing faithful transcripts. This duty is enshrined in the Rules of Court and administrative circulars, which provide specific guidelines for the transcription and submission of stenographic notes. Administrative Circular No. 24-90, for instance, mandates that stenographers transcribe their notes and attach the transcripts to the case records within 20 days of the hearing. This requirement ensures that parties have timely access to accurate records of the proceedings, facilitating the fair and efficient resolution of cases.

In this case, Parce failed to meet these standards. The TSNs for the August 25 and September 5, 2005 hearings were made available only on November 7, 2005, significantly exceeding the 20-day period. Furthermore, the Court noted discrepancies between Parce’s transcript and the actual statements made during the hearing. While the Court acknowledged Parce’s claim of a heavy workload, it emphasized that this did not excuse her failure to comply with her duties. The Court quoted Antimaro v. Amores, stating:

Albeit this Court is solicitous of the plight of court stenographers, in the absence of compelling reasons to justify respondent’s failure to strictly comply with her duty within the prescribed period, she cannot be exonerated. Otherwise, every government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty will always proffer a similar excuse to escape punishment, to the great prejudice of public service.

Building on this principle, the Court reiterated the importance of diligence and competence in public service. Public office is a public trust, and those who hold such positions must perform their duties with utmost care and attention. In the context of court stenographers, this means ensuring the accuracy and timeliness of transcripts. The Court referenced the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which requires court employees to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.

The Court also addressed the issue of the re-used tape recording. While acknowledging that there was no specific rule prohibiting the re-use of tapes, the Court stressed the importance of preserving accurate records of court proceedings. The use of tape recordings is intended to aid stenographers in their duties, but it should not compromise the integrity of the record. In this case, the fact that Parce had re-used the tape from the April 29, 2005 hearing raised concerns about the preservation of evidence.

Ultimately, the Court found Parce guilty of simple neglect of duty, which is defined as a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. This offense is considered less grave under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Section 23 of these rules specifies that a first offense of simple neglect of duty is punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months. However, the Court, exercising its discretion, opted to impose a lighter penalty in this case. Considering Parce’s 32 years of service in the judiciary, her heavy workload, and the fact that this was her first administrative complaint, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 with a warning that future offenses would be dealt with more severely.

The Court’s decision reflects a balancing act between the need to maintain accountability in public service and the desire to recognize the circumstances of individual cases. While the Court emphasized the importance of diligence and accuracy in the performance of duties, it also took into account Parce’s long and otherwise unblemished record. This approach underscores the principle that disciplinary actions should be proportionate to the offense and tailored to the specific facts of each case.

The Court also touched on the issue of fees for transcripts. Rule 141, Sec. 11 states:

Stenographers shall give certified transcript of notes taken by them to every person requesting the same upon payment to the Clerk of Court of (a) TEN (P10.00) PESOS for each page of not less than two hundred and fifty words before the appeal is taken and (b) FIVE (P5.00) PESOS for the same page, after the filing of the appeal, provided, however, that one- third (1/3) of the total charges shall accrue to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) to the stenographer concerned.

This provision serves to limit the fees stenographers can charge. Thus, court stenographers cannot demand higher fees for their TSNs, without transgressing the Rules.

Moreover, even though Parce deviated from the Rule 136 Sec. 17:

It shall be the duty of the stenographer who has attended a session of a court either in the morning or in the afternoon, to deliver to the clerk of court, immediately at the close of such morning or afternoon session, all the notes he has taken, to be attached to the record of the case; and it shall likewise be the duty of the clerk to demand that the stenographer comply with said duty. The clerk of court shall stamp the date on which such notes are received by him. When such notes are transcribed the transcript shall be delivered to the clerk, duly initialed on each page thereof, to be attached to the record of the case.

The court also considered the reasons why the respondent deviated from the Rules. She is not without valid reasons — not being a regular stenographer in Branch 21 and for security purposes.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a court stenographer could be held administratively liable for delays and inaccuracies in transcribing stenographic notes. The Court found the stenographer guilty of simple neglect of duty.
What is simple neglect of duty?	Simple neglect of duty is defined as the disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is considered a less grave offense under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
What penalty was imposed on the stenographer?	Considering the stenographer’s long service and the absence of prior offenses, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 with a warning against future misconduct, instead of a suspension.
What is the duty of a court stenographer regarding stenographic notes?	A court stenographer must transcribe stenographic notes accurately and submit them to the Clerk of Court within 20 days from the hearing, as per Administrative Circular No. 24-90.
Is re-using tape recordings of court proceedings allowed?	While not explicitly prohibited, the Court emphasized the importance of preserving accurate records, suggesting caution in re-using tapes to avoid compromising the integrity of the record.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling underscores the importance of diligence and accuracy in the performance of duties by court personnel, particularly court stenographers, in ensuring the fair administration of justice.
What factors did the Court consider in determining the penalty?	The Court considered the stenographer’s 32 years of service, the absence of prior administrative offenses, and the claim of a heavy workload in determining the appropriate penalty.
Can court stenographers charge any amount for transcripts?	No, the fees for transcripts are regulated by the Rules of Court. Court stenographers cannot demand higher fees than those prescribed by the rules.

This case serves as a reminder of the crucial role that court stenographers play in the administration of justice and the importance of upholding standards of diligence and accuracy in their work. While the Court is willing to consider mitigating circumstances, it will not excuse negligence or dereliction of duty that compromises the integrity of court records.

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: VIRGINIA D. SEANGIO VS. COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, MANILA, A.M. NO. P-06-2252, July 09, 2007