![](../../../imgs/sc-m.png) SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. P-00-1368 February 28, 2000
JUDGE ABELARDO H. SANTOS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Angeles City, complainant1,
vs.
AURORA T. LARANANG, Court Stenographer II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Angeles City, respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
These are complaints filed against Aurora T. Laranang, Court Stenographer II of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Angeles City, Pampanga charging her with gross neglect of duty and habitual tardiness.
It appears that on August 4, 1997, complainant issued an order requiring respondent to explain in writing within five days why no administrative complaint should be filed against her for her failure to transcribe within 20 days of their taking her stenographic notes in the following cases:2
Case No. | Witness | Date of Trial |
1. 91-508,509 | Tomas Solmerano | 12-8-92 |
2. 91-508,509 | Tomas Solmerano | 2-15-93 |
3. 91-508,509 | Luciano Roman | 9-6-93 |
4. 91-508,509 | Carlos Santos, Sr. | 3-27-95 |
5. 91-508,509 | Carlos Santos, Sr. | 12-18-95 |
6. 95-41,42,43 | Cezar Pangilinan | 12-5-95 |
7. 95-1435 | Nerilla Francia | 12-18-95 |
8. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO2 Ricardo Tolentino | 12-19-95 |
9. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO1 Arthur Petil | 12-19-95 |
10. 95-41,42,43 | Ester Tiamzon | 2-6-96 |
11. 94-769,770 | Roger Tiglao | 3-4-96 |
12. 95-1435 | Dr. Roland Maniulit | 3-19-96 |
13. 95-159 | Dr. Sesnando Sandalo | 3-31-96 |
14. 95-238 | Rodolfo Basilio | 5-28-97 |
15. 95-140 | Juana Guinto | 5-29-97 |
16. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO1 Arthur Petil | 6-10-96 |
17. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO1 Arthur Petil | 6-11-96 |
18. 95-34 | Lucia Maglaqui | 6-10-96 |
19. 95-1081,1082 | Petra Cuadro | 6-10-96 |
20. 95-1142 | Ariel Yanga | 6-24-96 |
21. 95-1435 | Nerilla Francia | 1-2-96 |
22. 94-606 | Elena Siongco | 6-24-96 |
23. 95-646,647 | Francisca Pena | 7-22-96 |
24. 95-1150 | Abraham Tayag | 7-29-96 |
25. 95-1144,1145 | Aezel Mangabat | 8-5-96 |
26. 95-917,918,919 | Ruben Sabado | 8-6-96 |
27. 96-602 | Esmeralda Velasquez | 8-19-96 |
28. 95-34 | SPO1 Arthur Petil | 8-19-96 |
29. 94,769,770 | Roger Tiglao | 8-19-96 |
30. 95-1150 | Abraham Tayag | 8-19-96 |
31. 91-508,509 | Angelito Santos | 8-20-96 |
32. 95,1645,1646,1647 | Manuel Cunanan | 8-23-96 |
33. 95-1150 | Dr. Hernand Tulud | 9-2-96 |
34. 96-15 | Romer Rubio | 9-2-96 |
35. 95-1435 | Alice Aquino | 9-3-96 |
36. 95-1645,1646,1647 | PO2 Luis Taruc | 9-3-96 |
37. 95-1142 | SPO2 Francisco Fernandez | 9-16-96 |
38. 96-303 | Noel Fernandez | 9-23-96 |
39. 96-576 | Rolando Madlambayan | 10-14-96 |
40. 95-159 | Rommel Salunga | 10-14-96 |
41. 94-769,770 | Roger Tiglao | 10-14-96 |
42. 95-932 | Bienvenido Bautista | 10-15-96 |
43. 95-140 | Isabela Cunanan | 10-18-96 |
44. 95-195,196 | Atty. Ricardo Diaz | 10-28-96 |
45. 96-303 | Noel Fernandez | 11-4-96 |
46. 95-1144,1145 | Aezel Mangabat | 11-5-96 |
47. 91-508,509 | SPO3 Danilo Cabigon | 11-11-96 |
48. 96-303 | Andres Fernandez | 11-11-96 |
49. 95-195,196 | Atty. Ricardo Diaz | 11-11-96 |
50. 95-932 | Gregorio Chua | 11-12-96 |
51. 96-255,256,257,258 | Mario Marmolejo | 11-25-96 |
52. 96-1005 | Dominador Cutamora | 11-25-96 |
53. 96-456 | Edilberto Villanueva | 11-25-96 |
54. 96-602 | Esperanza Bartolome | 12-10-96 |
55. 95-1435 | Rowena Miguel | 12-10-96 |
56. 96-14 | Abraham Tayag | 12-10-96 |
57. 96-303 | Elizardo Mandap, Jr. | 1-6-97 |
58. 96-576 | Dr. Edwin Manzon | 1-6-97 |
59. 95-1142 | Dr. Nicanor dela Cruz | 1-6-97 |
60. 96-201 | Luz Uson | 1-7-97 |
61. 95-1149 | PO2 Benjamin Quimsay | 3-17-97 |
62. 95-195,196 | Ramon Yap | 3-17-97 |
63. 96-1525 | SPO2 Felimon Oyan | 3-17-97 |
64. 96-303 | Nardito Licup | 4-14-97 |
65. 95-44 | Perfecto Digman | 5-26-97 |
66. 95-618 | Marissa Santos | 5-26-97 |
In compliance with said order, respondent submitted an undated letter explaining that as a result of the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts by R.A. No. 7691 and the consequent increase of case filed therein, and also because of a major surgery which she had undergone, she was not able to transcribe the stenographic notes taken by her within 20 days as required by Administrative Circular No. 24-90 of this Court. Nevertheless, she stated that she was subsequently able to transcribe 34 of the stenographic notes in question.
Finding the explanation of respondent to be unsatisfactorily, complainant filed against her an administrative complaint, dated September 30, 1997, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for gross neglect of duty. In her comment, respondent alleged: (1) that she was not able to transcribe her notes because of illness which forced her to go on leave several times; (2) that on October 31, 1997, she completed transcribing 22 more stenographic notes, but complainant refused to receive the same; (3) that she was not the stenographer on duty during three of the hearing included in the list; and (4) that she was being singled out by complainant who wanted to oust her from his staff.
On February 11, 1998, complainant issued another order requiring respondent to explain in writing within five days why no administrative complaint should be filed against her for being tardy six times in September, 13 time in October, and 19 times in November 1997. In compliance with the order, respondent submitted a letter, dated February 20, 1998, alleging that the entries in her Daily Time Records (DTRs) for the months in question were incorrect because said entries were merely copied from the records kept by complainant, there being no bundy clock or logbook in the trial court. Respondent claimed that she was forced to sign the DTRs by complainant. Respondent presented a list which she claims indicated the correct time of her arrival in, and departure from, the court in November 1997.
Finding the explanation of respondent also to be unsatisfactory, complainant filed with the OCA the instant administrative complaint for habitual tardiness against her. In her comment, dated October 21, 1998, respondent reiterates substantially the allegations in her letter to complainant.1âwphi1.nęt
The administrative complaint were referred to Judge Aida E. Layug, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Angeles City, for investigation, report, and recommendation. In her report, dated January 28, 2000, Judge Layug recommends that the complaint for gross neglect of duty against respondent be dismissed and that the latter be found guilty of habitual tardiness only and reprimand.
First. On the transcription of stenographic notes. Administrative Circular No. 24-90 provides in pertinent part:
2. (a) All stenographers are required to transcribe all stenograpic notes and to attach the transcript to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. The attaching may be done by putting all said transcripts in a separate folder or envelope, which will then be joined to the record of the case.
(b) The stenographer concerned shall accomplish a verified monthly certification as to compliance with this duty. In the absence of such certification or for failure and/or refusal to submit it, his salary shall be withheld.
In the instant case, respondent submitted the transcripts of stenographic notes in the following cases more than 20 days from the time the notes were taken.3
Case No. | Witness | Date of Trial | Date of Submission |
1. 91-508,509 | Tomas Solmerano | Dec. 8, 1992 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
2. 91-508,509 | Tomas Solmerano | Feb. 15, 1993 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
3. 95-41,42,43 | Cezar Pangilinan | Dec. 5, 1995 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
4. 95-1435 | Nerilla Francia | Dec. 18, 1995 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
5. 95-41,42,43 | Ester Tiamzon | Feb. 6, 1995 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
6. 94-769,770 | Roger Tiglao | March 4, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
7. 95-1435 | Dr. Roland Maniulit | March 19, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
8. 95-140 | Juana Guinto | May 29, 1997 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
9. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO1 Arthur Petil | June 11, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
10. 95-1081,1082 | Petra Cuadro | June 10, 1996 | March 13, 1998 |
11. 95-1435 | Nerilla Francia | Jan. 2, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
12. 94-606 | Elena Siongco | June 24, 1996 | March 6, 1998 |
13. 95-646,647 | Francisca Pena | July 22, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
14. 95-1144,1143 | Aezel Mangabat | Aug. 5, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
15. 95-917,918,919 | Ruben Sabado | Aug. 6, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
16. 96-602 | Esmeralda Velasquez | Aug. 19, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
17. 94,769,770 | Roger Tiglao | Aug. 19, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
18. 95,1645,1646,1647 | Manuel Cunanan | Aug. 23, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
19. 95-1150 | Dr. Hernad Tulud | Sept. 2, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
20. 96-15 | Romer Rubio | Sept. 2, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
21. 95-1435 | Alice Aquino | Sept. 3, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
22. 95-932 | Bienvenido Bautista | Oct. 15, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
23. 95-140 | Isabela Cunanan | Oct. 18, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
24. 95-195,196 | Atty. Ricardo Diaz | Oct. 28, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
25. 96-303 | Andres Fernandez | Nov. 11, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
26. 95-195,196 | Atty. Ricardo Diaz | Nov. 11, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
27. 95-932 | Gregorio Chua | Nov. 12, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
28. 96-456 | Edilberto Villanueva | Nov. 25, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
29. 96-602 | Esperanza Bartolome | Dec. 10, 1996 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
30. 95-1434 | Rowena Miguel | Dec. 10, 1996 | Sept. 11, 1997 |
31. 96-303 | Elizardo Mandap, Jr. | Jan. 1, 1997 | Sept. 5, 1997 |
32. 96-201 | Luz Uson | Jan. 7, 1997 | Feb. 2, 1997 |
On October 31, 1997, respondent offered to submit the transcripts of stenographic notes in the following cases, but complainant allegedly refused to receive them:4
Case No. | Witness | Date of Trial |
1. 91-508,509 | Carlos Santos, Sr. | March 27, 1995 |
2. 91-508,509 | Carlos Santos, Sr. | Dec. 18, 1995 |
3. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO2 Ricardo Tolentino | Dec. 19, 1995 |
4. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO1 Arthur Petil | Dec. 19, 1995 |
5. 95-159 Dr. | Sesnando Sandalo | March 31, 1996 |
6. 95-238 | Rodolfo Basilio | May 28, 1997 |
7. 95-11,28,29,30 | SPO1 Arthur Petil | June 10, 1996 |
8. 95-34 | Lucia Maglaqui | June 10, 1996 |
9. 95-1142 | Ariel Yanga | June 24, 1996 |
10. 95-1150 | Abraham Tayag | Aug. 19, 1996 |
11. 91-508,509 | Angelito Santos | Aug. 20, 1996 |
12. 95-1142 | SPO2 Francisco Fernandez | Sept. 16, 1996 |
13. 95-159 | Rommel Salunga | Oct. 14, 1996 |
14. 91-508,509 | SPO3 Danilo Cabigon | Nov. 11, 1996 |
15. 96-255,256,257,258 | Mario Marmolejo | Nov. 25, 1996 |
16. 96-1005 | Dominador Cutamora | Nov. 25, 1996 |
17. 96-14 | Abraham Tayag | Dec. 10, 1996 |
18. 95-1142 Dr. | Nicanor dela Cruz | Jan. 6, 1997 |
19. 95-1149 PO2 | Benjamin Quimsay | March 17, 1997 |
20. 96-303 | Nardito Licup | April 14, 1997 |
21. 95-44 | Perfecto Digman | May 26, 1997 |
22. 95-618 | Marissa Santos | May 26, 1997 |
There is nothing in the records to show whether respondent submitted the transcript of stenographic notes in the following cases:5
Case No. | Witness | Date of Trial |
1. 91-528,509 | Luciano Roman | Sept. 6, 1993 |
2. 95-1150 | Abraham Tayag | July 29, 1996 |
3. 95-34 SPO1 | Arthur Petil | Aug. 19, 1996 |
4. 95-1645,1646,1647 | PO2 Luis Taruc | Sept. 3, 1996 |
5. 96-576 | Rolando Madlambayan | Oct. 14, 1996 |
6. 94-769,770 | Roger Tiglao | Oct. 14, 1996 |
7. 96-303 | Noel Fernandez | Nov. 4, 1996 |
8. 95-1144,1145 | Aezel Mangabat | Nov. 5, 1998 |
9. 96-576 Dr. | Edwin Manzon | Jan. 6, 1997 |
10. 95-195,196 | Ramon Yap | March 17, 1997 |
11. 96-1525 | SPO2 Felimon Oyan | March 17, 1997 |
By way of summary, out of the 66 stenographic notes mentioned in the complaint, respondent failed to transcribed on time 54 notes (including the 22 notes complainant allegedly refused to receive). She failed to submit the transcript of 11 stenographic notes. Her excuse was that because of illness, she had to go on leave. However, there is nothing in the records to show whether respondent went on sick leave in 19996. What the records show is that she went on vacation leave for 13 days in 1996, when most of the stenographic notes in question were taken.6 Furthermore, even assuming that she was not able to transcribe her notes because of illness, respondent could have asked for extension of time for submitting the transcripts of stenographic notes. This, however, she failed to do. The only conclusion is that she was grossly neglectful of her duty under Administrative Circular No. 24-90 regarding the transcription of stenographic notes.
Second. With respect to the complaint for habitual tardiness, Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991 provides in pertinent part:
B. HABITUAL TARDINESS
Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
C. SANCTIONS
1. The following sanctions shall be imposed for violation of the above guidelines:
(a) for the first violation, the employee, after due proceedings, shall be meted the penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year suspension without pay;
(b) for the second violation, and after due proceedings, he shall be dismissed from service.
In the instant case, the DTRs submitted by respondent show that she was tardy six times in September, 10 times in October, and 19 times in November 1997.7 Her allegation that the entries in her DTRs for the months in question are not true and that she signed the same only because she was forced to do so by complainant has not been substantiated and, therefore, cannot be given credence. Her bare assertion cannot prevail over the presumption that the entries in the DTRs are correct and that she signed the same voluntarily. Indeed, the list presented by respondent, which she claims shows the correct times of her arrival in and departure from the office in November 1997, indicates that she was tardy 19 times.8
It would seem that Judge Layug's only reason for recommending the exoneration of respondent of the charge of gross neglect of duty is that respondent after all was able to transcribe most of the stenographic notes taken by her. It should be pointed out, however, that liability for violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 in incurred if notes are not transcribed within 20 days after these are taken. The fact that the notes were later transcribed can only mitigate such liability. In previous cases, we imposed the penalty of fine on erring stenographers.9 Considering the number of stenographic notes which respondent failed to transcribe on time, the fact that she failed to transcribed 11 notes taken by her, and her habitual tardiness, her suspension for six (6) months would be an appropriate penalty to impose on her.
WHEREFORE, respondent Aurora T. Laranang, Court Stenographers II of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Angeles City, Pampanga, is found guilty of gross neglect of duty and habitual tardiness and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months and ordered to submit within the same period the transcripts of stenographic notes in the eleven (11) cases mentioned above, with WARNING that her failure to do so will be dealt with more severely.
The Presiding Judge and Branch Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Angeles City are required to report on the compliance by respondent with this decision within ten (10) days after the expiration of the time given to herein respondent for submitting the transcript of stenographic notes.1âwphi1.nęt
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Buena, J., on leave.
Footnotes
1 Complainant has since been dismissed from the service for conduct unbecoming a member of the bench in Galang v. Santos, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1197, May 26, 1999.
2 Complainant in OCA-IPI No. 97-362-P; Rollo, p. 2-3.
3 Comment in OCA-IPI-97-362-P, Annexes D, D-1, D-1-A, D-1-B, and D-1-C; Id; pp. 58-62.
4 Id., Annex D-1-D; Id., p. 63.
5 Complaint in OCA-IPI No. 97-362-P; Id., pp. 2-3 and Comment, Annexes D, D-1, D-1-A, D-1-B, D-1-C, and D-1-D; Id., pp. 58.63
6 Comment in OCA-IPI No. 97-362-P, Annex 3-A; Id., p. 70.
7 Complaint in OCA-IPI No. 98-463-P, Annexes B, C, and D; Id., pp. 8-10.
8 Id., Annex G; Id., pp. 15-27.
9 See, e.g., Ongkiko Kalaw Dizon Panga & Velasco Law Offices v. Sangil-Makasiar, 256 SCRA 29 (1996).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
|