Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
ANG
KEK CHEN, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1649
Complainant,
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1605-MTJ)
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,
and
REYES,
JJ.
JUDGE
CRISTINA F. JAVALERA-
SULIT
and STENOGRAPHER
PRIMITIVA
A. CALIAO-GLORIA,
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH
27,
Respondents.
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a Verified-Complaint dated
July 12, 2004,[1] an Amended Verified
Complaint dated August 5, 2004[2] and an Erratum dated
August 9, 2004,[3] filed by
Ang Kek Chen (complainant)
against Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit (Judge Sulit) and Stenographer Primitiva
A. Caliao-Gloria (Gloria) for serious or gross
misconduct in connection with the transcription of the stenographic notes (TSN)
taken on the proceedings held on March 26, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 367476 for
unjust vexation, where herein complainant is the accused.
Complainant's allegations are as
follows:
There is no excuse for Judge Sulit and Gloria not to know that stenographers are
required to submit the TSN taken by them not later than 20 days from the time
the notes were taken. Right after the
hearing on P200.00 as
down payment for the TSN of the proceedings with the understanding that the
same will be available in one week.
Gloria failed to comply; thus, he filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion dated
In a Motion
dated
Complainant further alleges that
certain orders in the subject case
appear to have been released earlier than their dates of issuances; and Judge Sulit
did not initiate appropriate disciplinary actions against Prosecutor Ramos and
Atty. Calasan (the complainant in the criminal case)
for their unprofessional conduct in court.[7]
He prays that Judge Sulit
be required to submit a report on the “mess” in
Criminal Case No. 367476; to explain why she did not want to initiate
appropriate disciplinary actions against Prosecutor Ramos and Atty. Calasan; and to explain the reason why she did not
want to order Gloria to submit a faithful transcript of the March 26, 2004
proceedings based on the stenographic paper tape notes taken during the said
hearing and the copy of the audio tape recording taken during the
same. Complainant further prays
that, in order to “unlock the mysteries” why
Judge Sulit did not want to order Gloria to submit a
faithful transcript of said hearing, the two of them should be
ordered to forward to the OCA the original stenographic notes of March 26, 2004
and the original tape recording of the same, and immediately designate an
expert stenographer to determine whether Gloria had competently recorded the
proceeding; whether she could really transcribe the
proceeding; and whether the copy of the audio tape
recording given by the court on June 3, 2004 to complainant is a faithful
reproduction of the original sound tape recording taken on the said proceeding.[8]
In her Comment dated September 7, 2004,
Judge Sulit asseverates that: the complaint against
her is malicious and unfounded; on April 28, 2004, she
issued an Order directing Gloria to transcribe the proceedings of March 26,
2004 within five days from receipt of the same; she issued another Order on
June 1, 2004 directing Stenographer De Jesus to give a copy of the tape recording
of the proceedings to complainant for recopying; in the same order, she
informed complainant that should he find that the TSN is not accurate, he is
given time to file a motion for the correction of the same; she did not raise
her voice when complainant asked for an audience with her and such allegation, which was raised only in
the amended complaint, is clearly just an afterthought; she refused
complainant's request to issue an order directing the OCA to transcribe the
notes of Gloria as she has no authority to do so; the allegation that she
released Orders dated March 26, 2004 and April 28, 2004 before the dates of their
issuances has no basis as the certification of the Branch Clerk of Court and
the affidavit of Criminal Clerk in Charge Solita N. Esguerra show that the
said Orders were mailed on May 20, 2004; she is not aware of any unsigned TSN, as she
only knew of the original copy of the transcripts certified to by Gloria; and
finally, her inaction on the disciplinary measure sought against
Prosecutor Ramos and Atty. Calasan is justified, since
complainant asked for time to file an appropriate pleading in answer to the
prosecution's comment; hence
it was not yet due for resolution.[9]
Judge Sulit
further maintains that she has an unblemished record in the 18 years that she
has served the government as staff assistant, legal researcher, branch clerk of
court, prosecutor, and judge. The complainant meanwhile has the habit of filing
motions for disqualification and inhibition against the judges who earlier
handled the case, whenever he got unfavorable rulings from them; these, on top
of the charges he filed against Prosecutor Ramos and Atty. Calasan
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.[10]
Gloria for her part asserts that: she
has an unblemished record in the 30 years of her service in the judiciary; the
complaint is petty, misleading, baseless and malicious and the questions
regarding the transcripts are best addressed to a judge for clarification in
the presence of all parties concerned rather than before the OCA.[11]
Gloria
further alleges that: when complainant approached her and asked
for a copy of the transcripts on March 26, 2004, she requested at least three weeks, as she
had other urgent matters which were ahead of complainant's case; moreover, the
next setting of complainant's case was not until September 17, 2004;
complainant insisted and left P200.00 as
deposit; she requested her daughter-in-law to practice transcribing her notes
and the latter prepared the transcription based on what she understood from
Gloria's notes; complainant, in one of his visits, saw this
transcript and asked to borrow the same, but Gloria
refused saying that it was not an official copy; complainant insisted and said
that he will just read the same; she (Gloria), acting
in good faith and without malice, agreed to complainant's
request to read the draft; after a few days, complainant was in the office, and she
furnished him a copy of the transcript; thereafter, he filed a Manifestation
anent his observations on the transcripts.[12]
On
Records do not show what actions
were taken on complainant’s prayer for voluntary inhibition. However, the OCA submitted its Report dated
Complainant's style is indeed difficult. Nonetheless, since he tenaciously refuses to
seek the assistance of counsel, and in order not to farther (sic) stretch the
long-deserved resolution of this controversy, we focus on the recurrent issues
perceivable in complainant's original and amended complaints. These are: against respondent stenographer: (1) erroneous transcription of
the proceedings on March 26, 2004; (2)
delayed submission of the TSN thereof;
(3) coming up with two different/divergent versions of the TSN; against respondent judge: (1) failure to act on complainant's
motions; (2) refusal to initiate disciplinary action(s) against the concerned
persons; (3) irregularities between the dates of release and of issuance of the
Orders dated March 26, 2004 (two) and April 28, 2004.
The charges against respondent judge are not meritorious. The alleged failure to act on complainant's
motions is belied by the records.
Respondent judge merely inherited the case with several pending
incidents. In spite of this, during her
first hearing of the case on
Consequently, the alleged refusal to initiate disciplinary
action relative to the transcription has no basis. In fact, the Order dated
Finally,the
supposed discrepancies in the dates of release and of issuance of certain
orders were sufficiently explained. The certification of the Branch Clerk of
Court, Gina D. Turiano, dated
We go now to the charges against respondent
stenographer. The complaint relative to
the erroneous transcription is premature.
As discussed above, the actual mistakes in the transcription have yet to
be established. The Order dated
The assailed delay in transcribing must likewise
fail. There is conflict as to when the
TSN was really due. According to
complainant, respondent stenographer promised him that it would be available after
one week. The latter, however, claims
that she requested for at least three weeks to finish the document. Nowhere in the records does it appear that
they were able to agree on a definite period.
At any rate, it appears that the request of respondent stenographer was
justified in light of the long gap before the next hearing.
The emergence of
second version of the TSN, however, reflects paucity of prudence of the
part of respondent stenographer. She
admitted that such a copy indeed came from her, albeit it was not an official
one, being prepared only by a trainee.
She even claims to have known that it was not an accurate
transcription. This knowledge should
have cautioned her to see to it that the limitations of such copy should not
stir trouble in the mind of a meticulous complainant. That it reached complainant's hands and
indeed stirred his misgiving can only be blamed on her. Her explanation that she merely gave it to
complainant out of trust and in good faith is hardly convincing since the
repercussions of her action were very obvious that to disregard them borders on
negligence.[15]
The OCA then
recommended that:
1. The instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a
regular administrative case;
2. The charges against respondent Judge
Christina F. Javalera-Sulit, MeTC,
Branch 27,
3. Respondent Stenographer Primitiva
A. Caliao-Gloria, MeTC,
Branch 27, Manila, be REPRIMANDED for lack of prudence in releasing an
unofficial copy of the TSN despite knowledge that the same is inaccurate and
prepared only by a mere trainee;
4. The rest of the charges against respondent
stenographer be DISMISSED for lack of merit.[16]
On
Parenthetically, Judge Sulit filed another Manifestation on September 25, 2006
stating that she noticed that her earlier manifestation was dated
August 15, 2006 instead of September 15, 2006; that she actually received the
August 9, 2006 Order of the Court also on September 15, 2006 and not August 15,
2006 as earlier stated; that such errors on the dates were merely typographical
with no intention to cause prejudice to anybody.[20]
In a Motion
dated
Complainant filed a pleading dated June
4, 2007 in reply to Judge Sulit's May 15, 2007
motion, questioning how Judge Sulit could have
obtained a copy of the Resolution dated August 9, 2006 on August 15, 2006 when
the Assistant Clerk of Court of the First Division Edgar Aricheta
said that the same could only be released on September 14, 2006. He also said that Judge Sulit
is “super malakas” with
Justice Marigomen as manifested by Justice Marigomen's June 23, 2005 Order which found the complaint
difficult to understand and confusing.
Complainant then reiterated his charges against Judge Sulit.
Judge Sulit
filed her Comment on the said pleading, dated
Complainant filed a Rejoinder to Judge Sulit's Comment dated June 25, 2007, asking
why Judge Sulit was personally served a copy of the
August 9, 2006 Order; he also pointed out that
the manifestations of Judge Sulit and Gloria submitting
the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed are identical, manifesting
Judge Sulit's lack of impartiality and, thus, her
failure to file an administrative case against Gloria; the manifestations of
Judge Sulit and Gloria also stated that they received
a copy of the August 9, 2006 Order of the Court on August 15, 2006, when the
same was still under process and could only be released on September 14,
2006.
The
Court’s Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings
and recommendations of OCA as to Judge Sulit; but with modifications as to the
liability of Gloria.
Re: Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit
As correctly found by the OCA, the
charges against Judge Sulit are not meritorious and
should therefore be dismissed.
Complainant's allegation that Judge Sulit did not act on his motions asking for the
transcription of the proceedings on
Complainant's claim that Judge Sulit failed to impose disciplinary action against Fiscal
Ramos and Atty. Calasan is also without merit, as
records show that complainant himself asked for time to file a responsive
pleading; thus, it was not yet due for resolution.[26] In any event, the power to impose or initiate
disciplinary action against parties rests upon the sound discretion of the
judge, who in the discharge of her duties may exercise the same only upon
sufficient grounds.
Complainant's assertion that there were
orders that were released prior to the dates of their issuances were also
addressed by the certification of the Branch Clerk of Court[27] and the Affidavit
of Clerk Esguerra stating that the Orders dated March
26, 2004 and April 28, 2004 were released by mail only on May 20, 2004.[28]
Complainant’s allegation
that Judge Sulit raised her voice when he requested
her to write a letter to the OCA is not only uncorroborated but is also suspect, as he
alleged the same only in his amended complaint.
Complainant's imputation that Judge Sulit has
an influence on Justice Marigomen has no basis and
should therefore be struck down. Mere
imputation of judicial misconduct without sufficient proof to sustain the same
will never be countenanced. Indeed, if a
judge should be disciplined for misconduct, the evidence against him should be
competent.[29]
The Court notes that Judge Sulit has served the government in various capacities for
18 years and has never been previously charged administratively or
criminally. She was even nominated to
the Judicial Excellence Awards for 2006. Her chance of being chosen however was
thwarted by the present administrative case.[30] Complainant on the other hand has been shown to
have a propensity to file actions against judges and parties whenever the
actions of the latter are not to his liking.
As the Court has repeatedly pronounced,
any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined
with a discriminating eye on its consequential effects are by
their nature highly penal, such that the respondent judge stands to face the
sanction of dismissal or disbarment.
Mere imputation in the absence of sufficient proof will never be
countenanced. Indeed, when an
administrative charge against a judge is determined to have no basis
whatsoever, the Court will not hesitate to protect her against any groundless
accusation that trifles with judicial process.
The Court will not hesitate to shield its employees from unfounded suits
that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of
justice.[31]
Re: Stenographer Primitiva
A. Caliao-Gloria
The Court agrees that Gloria should be
disciplined. She allowed her
daughter-in-law, who was a mere trainee, to
transcribe her notes. There is no showing that the presence of the
trainee was with the knowledge or approval of the judge. She also allowed complainant
to get a copy of an unofficial TSN with all its defects and
inaccuracies. When Gloria later issued a revised version, this naturally produced
in the mind of herein complainant the impression that certain
irregularities attended the TSN and eventually resulted in the delay in
the resolution of the criminal case.
Regardless of the insistence of the complainant, it was highly improper for
Gloria to have allowed him to prevail upon her and get a
copy of the TSN that was prepared by a mere trainee.
The Court also notes that Gloria failed
to comply with paragraph 2(a) of Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which
requires all stenographers to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach
the transcripts to the record of the case not later than 20 days from the time
the notes were taken.
In this case, the hearing took place on
Gloria’s issuance of an
unofficial TSN and her failure to comply with the period provided in
Administrative Circular No. 24-90
constitute simple neglect of duty which carries a penalty of suspension from
work for one month and one day to six months for the first offense.[32] Considering, however, the
length of service of Gloria in the judiciary and that this is her first
administrative offense, which serve to mitigate her liability,[33] the
Court finds that a fine of P5,000.00 is sufficient in
this case.[34]
A court stenographer performs a
function that is vital to the prompt and fair administration of justice.
Stenographers, like all other public officers, are accountable to the people at
all times; thus, they must strictly perform their duties and responsibilities. A public office is a public trust, and a
court stenographer violates this trust whenever she fails to fulfill her
duties.[35]
WHEREFORE, the charges against Judge
Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit are DISMISSED for lack
of merit. Stenographer Primitiva A. Caliao-Gloria is FINED Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00) for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and WARNED to be
more circumspect in the performance of her duties, as a
commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-16.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
See Resolution dated
[20]
[21]
See Humble Motion for Early
Resolution filed by Judge Sulit, dated
[22] Annex “4”, rollo, p. 401.
[23]
See Orders dated
[24] Annex “5”, id. at 402.
[25]
Almojuela,
Jr. v. Ringor,
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1521,
[26] Rollo,
p. 397; see also Order dated
[27] Annex “7”, id. at 404.
[28] Annex “8-B”, id. at 407.
[29]
Mataga
v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488,
[30] See Humble Motion for Early
Resolution dated
[31] Mataga v. Rosete, supra note 29, at 221-222.
[32] Office of the Court Administrator
v. Montalla, A.M. No. P-06-2269,
[33]
Office of the Court
Administrator v. Montalla, id.
[34] See generally, Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, id.; Racasa v. Collado-Calizo, 430 Phil. 775, 783 (2002).
[35] Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, supra note 32.