Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
CONCERNED CITIZEN, Complainant, - versus - MARIA CONCEPCION M.
DIVINA, Court Stenographer, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-07-2369 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2444-P] Present: CARPIO,* PERALTA, J., Acting Chairperson, ABAD, MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: November 16, 2011 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
MENDOZA, J.:
This disposition addresses
the administrative complaints against respondent, Maria Concepcion M. Divina (Divina),
Court Stenographer of the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Bataan, Branch
3 (RTC),
to wit: 1] an undated anonymous letter-complaint[1] filed
by a Concerned Citizen charging her with Gross Misconduct for her alleged
attempt to extort ₱20,000.00 in exchange for the Transcript of Stenographic
Notes (TSN) of their case; 2]
a letter-complaint[2] dated August 24, 2005 of
Atty. Teodoro O. Camacho III (Atty. Camacho) for her alleged
arrogant behavior; and 3] a
complaint-affidavit[3] filed by Ricardo M. Ricardo
(Ricardo)
charging her with extortion and
inefficiency.
As synthesized by the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) in its
Records show that sometime in 2005, an
anonymous complaint was filed by a Concerned Citizen against Maria Concepcion
M. Divina, Court Stenographer, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3,
On
On
Considering the gravity of the charges
against the respondent and in order to afford her a chance to answer the
accusations against her, the Court, in its Resolution of
In compliance with the October 11, 2006
Resolution, Judge Escalada reported that respondent faces three (3) charges;
(1) extortion and delay in submitting the Transcript of Stenographic Notes in
Civil Case No. 7400; (2) delay in submitting the TSN covering the proceeding in
other cases; and (3) belligerent attitude exhibited against Atty. Teodoro O.
Camacho III.
In the investigation conducted by Judge
Escalada, Mr. Ricardo M. Ricardo, petitioner in Civil Case No. 7400, for
annulment of marriage, testified that he was not the author of the anonymous
complaint and his Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated
Atty. Camachos complaint stemmed from a
verbal row he had with respondent on
In his Investigation Report[6]
dated
Anent the charge of belligerent
attitude by Atty. Camacho, Judge Escalada opined that it was not sufficiently
established, although evidence on this score all the more showed how
inefficient and ineffective Divina had become as a stenographer. For her
infractions, Judge Escalada recommended that Divina be suspended from service for
not less than six (6) months without pay. Further, he suggested that, after
serving her suspension penalty, Divina be transferred to any first-level court
in
The Court referred the investigation
report of Judge Escalada to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation
as per Resolution[7]
dated
In the Memorandum[8]
dated
In the Resolution[9]
dated September 10, 2007, the Court resolved to: 1) re-docket
the complaint as a regular administrative matter; 2) direct the Clerk of Court
of the RTC to properly monitor the Stenographic Reporters under her
supervision; and 3) order Judge Escalada to review the performance rating of
Divina for the period from January to June 2007, pursuant to Circular No.
172-2003 dated December 2, 2003 and to submit his recommendations to this Court
through the Performance Evaluation Committee (PERC), OCA.
In compliance with the directive, Judge
Escalada submitted a letter[10]
dated
In the Resolution[11]
dated
Pursuant thereto, the OCA issued its Memorandum[12]
dated July 11, 2008 stating that Divinas improvement in her work performance would
not exonerate her from her culpability for inefficiency and violation of the
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, particularly, Section 4, Canon 1 which
prohibits court personnel from accepting any fee or remuneration beyond what
they receive or are entitled to in their official capacity. The OCA recommended
that Divina be found guilty of gross violation of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel for demanding money over and above the fees of TSN as provided for in
the Rules and recommended that she be dismissed from service with forfeiture of
all salaries and benefits, except accrued leave credits to which she may be
entitled, and with disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government-owned and controlled corporation.
On
In the Resolution[16]
dated
After a judicious review of the
records, the Court finds that this case can be decided based on the pleadings
filed by the parties and the reports submitted by the Investigating Judge and
the OCA. Divinas motion for further investigation and presentation of evidence
is denied considering that she was already afforded sufficient opportunity to
controvert and refute the accusations against her through her comment and
testimony during the full-blown investigation conducted by Judge Escalada.
The issue to be resolved now is
whether or not Divina is guilty of the charges hurled against her. In this
regard, the Court determines that the findings of the OCA in its
In administrative proceedings, the
quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or
such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence
the allegations in the complaint.[19]
In the present case, there is no
sufficient, clear and convincing evidence to hold Divina administratively
liable for Gross Misconduct as charged in the undated anonymous letter. As
found during the investigation, apart from the allegation of the Concerned
Citizen, not a scintilla of evidence was proffered to establish that she demanded
and solicited the amount of ₱20,000.00 from a party in a pending case
before the RTC in exchange for the prompt preparation of the TSN. It bears to
point out that the author of the undated anonymous letter never came out in the
open to testify before the Investigating Judge to support his claim that Divina
had engaged in an illegal activity to make money out of a case pending before
the RTC.
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
This brings to fore the application of the age-old but familiar rule that he
who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it for mere allegation is not
evidence. Reliance on mere allegation, conjectures and suppositions will leave
an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on.[20]
The allegation of Concerned Citizen that Divina attempted to extort ₱20,000.00
has remained as such and, thus, cannot be admitted as evidence, let alone given
evidentiary weight. As it stands, this charge of attempted extortion has
remained unsubstantiated and, hence, should be dismissed.
The charge of belligerent/arrogant
behavior against Divina must likewise fail. A circumspect scrutiny of the
records has revealed that the testimony of Atty. Camacho is inadequate to establish
his claim and to hold her liable for misconduct. The Court fully subscribes to
the findings of the Investigating Judge whose observation deserves to be quoted
at length, thus:
Apropos the incident between complainant
Camacho and the respondent, the Investigating Judge is at a loss on how to make
a categorical disposition. The testimony of complainant Camacho is as credible
as that of respondents insofar as the incident in question is concerned.
Although this Investigating Judge was present when the spat took place, his
attention was focused at a case then being heard. It would have been easier for
the Investigating Judge to make a clear-cut finding had complainant Camacho or
respondent, on their own, offered the testimony of Atty. Eliodoro S. Baluyot or
of any other person who may have been an eyewitness in support of their
versions. Verily, some leeway must be allowed to the justification proffered by
respondent. It is not hard to imagine the situation the respondent was in at
the time of the incident. She should have all eyes and ears at the hearing then
in progress, and yet, a lawyer in front of her kept on asking her about a copy
of a TSN which is not even due to him but to some other lawyer. This is not to
say, however, that the respondent should be absolved entirely of what had happened
between her and complainant Camacho. The fact is that a TSN was due from her
and it took a lot of requests from said complainant before she made it
available. xxx[21]
The Court has always stressed that
the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of
justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy burden
of responsibility.[22] All
court personnel must observe strict propriety and decorum to preserve and
maintain the publics respect for and trust in the judiciary. Needless to say,
every act and word of all court personnel should be characterized by prudence,
restraint, courtesy and diligence.
In this case, Divinas demeanor at
the time was nothing but an isolated emotional outburst after being
apparently distracted from taking down stenographic notes of a proceeding because
of the repetitious and annoying requests of Atty. Camacho for a copy of the TSN,
not for himself, but for his lawyer friend. To the mind of the Court, Divinas conduct
was not of such deplorable and contemptible nature that would serve as valid
basis to slap her with an administrative and disciplinary sanction in view of
the facts obtaining in this case. Besides, there is no showing that her behavior
at that time was calculated merely to disrespect, humiliate or insult Atty.
Camacho before those present during the hearing. It is significant to note that
Atty. Camacho has not cited any other similar incident to validate his
accusation of her alleged belligerent attitude towards him.
Meanwhile, the accusation of
extortion by Ricardo against Divina is bereft of merit and, hence, must also be
dismissed. The charge of extortion is a factual matter which must be
established and proved with sufficient competent evidence. Complainant, upon
whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, failed to show in a
satisfactory manner the facts upon which he based his claim. No clear and solid
proof was offered by Ricardo to show that Divina demanded money from him in
exchange for immediate preparation of his TSN. As found by the Investigating Judge,
Ricardo even admitted that he voluntarily gave money to Divina each time the
latter would ask for it because he believed that this would expedite the
transcription of their stenographic notes.
The Court is in full accord with the
findings and evaluation of the Investigating Judge whose assessment and
appreciation of evidence are quite competent and convincing. An accusation of
extortion is a very serious charge which, if properly substantiated, would
entail not only the respondents dismissal from the Judiciary but also a
possible criminal prosecution. To be sure, it will take more than a mere
ambiguous testimony of a lone witness to lend an aura of credibility to such accusation.
The records, however, are replete
with evidence clearly showing that Divina is less than zealous in the
performance of her official duties as court stenographer. As such, she failed
to live up to the standard of efficiency and professionalism that the Judiciary
demands from its court personnel.
For one, Divina failed to strictly follow
Administrative Circular No. 24-90[23]
that prescribes the time for completion and submission of TSN. Thus:
2. (a) All stenographers are required to
transcribe all stenographic 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 records of the case.
(b) The stenographer concerned shall accomplish a verified monthly
certification as to compliance with this duty. xxx
The Court cannot turn a blind eye on Divinas
clear violation of the foregoing circular which is evident from the open court
orders given by Judge Escalada, Presiding Judge of RTC,
Records also disclose that Judge
Escalada issued a Memorandum[28]
dated
Further, it was shown that Margarita
H. Quicho (Ms. Quicho), Officer-in-Charge of the RTC, submitted an
inventory of overdue TSN[32]
of Divina as of January 28, 2006, consisting of four (4) pages in compliance
with the October 11, 2006 Resolution of the Court. Said inventory disclosed
that Divina had a total of 109
untranscribed notes, 3 of which were taken in April, August and November 2001,
5 in 2002, 12 in 2003, 22 in 2004, and 67 in 2005. According to Ms. Quicho, Divina
still had to submit the TSN as of
Lastly, the evidence shows that Divina
gave Ricardo difficult time in securing the needed TSN in Civil Case No. 7400.
Despite numerous requests and follow-ups, Ricardo failed to get from her copies
of the TSN though he already paid for them. Notably, she submitted the TSN in
Civil Case No. 7400, covering the proceedings taken on
In a desperate bid to exonerate
herself from administrative liability and to justify her delays, Divina cited
her heavy workload and the need to transcribe the stenographic notes in several
other cases as well. She bared that she had to bring home some of her notes so
that she could finish transcribing them and in the process, she spent a part of
her salary for tape recorder, blank cassette tape, batteries and the like. She also
claimed that she had to report for work even on her birthdays and when her
children were in the hospital just to complete her duties and obligations.
Although the Court is solicitous of the plight of court stenographers, being
saddled with heavy workload is not compelling reason enough to justify Divinas
failure to faithfully comply with the prescribed period provided in
Administrative Circular No. 24-90 and, thus, she must be faulted. Otherwise,
every government employee charged with inefficiency would resort to the same
convenient excuse to evade punishment, to the great prejudice of public
service. Moreover, as observed by Judge Escalada, of the four stenographers
assigned to his court, only Divina was found to be delinquent in the
transcription of stenographic notes. It is noteworthy that Administrative
Circular No. 24-90 imposes upon all court stenographers the duty to transcribe
the stenographic notes within twenty days from the time they had been taken,
regardless of the presence or the absence of a demand for those notes by the
parties.[36]
Neither does the above justification
proffered by Divina constitute as sufficient excuse for her not to remit a
portion of her collection from Ricardo for requests of copies of the TSN in the
total amount of ₱600.00. Section 11,[37] Rule
141of the Rules of Court clearly provides that payment for requests of copies
of the TSN shall be made to the Clerk of Court, and that a third of the portion
of such payment accrues to the Judicial Development Fund (JDF), with only
two-thirds thereof to be paid to the stenographer concerned. Thus, a
stenographer is not entitled to the full amount of the TSN fees. Payment
likewise cannot be made to her as the payment is an official transaction that
must be made with the Clerk of Court.
For all her foregoing shortcomings, Divina has
shown her lack of dedication in the performance of her duties. As court
stenographer, she knows or ought to know that she performs an important role in
running the machinery of our trial court system and that TSNs are vital for the
speedy disposition of cases. Divina must be reminded that the image of a court
of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of
the men and women who work thereat and, hence, it becomes the imperative and
sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and
standing as a true temple of justice.[38] The
lackadaisical attitude displayed by Divina in performing her duties hampered
the prompt and proper administration of justice.
No less than the Constitution
mandates that public officers and employees must at all times serve the people
with utmost responsibility, integrity and efficiency.[39]
Indeed, public office is a public trust. Divina indubitably violated this trust
by failing to diligently fulfill her duties. Her delay and inefficiency in
punctually transcribing the notes she took of court proceedings assigned to her
definitely prejudiced public service and jeopardized the faith and confidence
of the affected litigants in the Judiciary.
The Court notes that Divina has not
been previously charged administratively and that she has been in the service
of the Judiciary for a long time, fifteen (15) years at the time of the
occurrence of the incident with Atty. Camacho.[40]
Also, it appears on record that Divina was given a Satisfactory rating by
Judge Escalada for the period January to March 2007 and a Very Satisfactory
rating by Judge Tanciangco, for the period April to June 2007. In view of this, the Court is inclined to give
Divina the benefit of the doubt and to construe her subsequent favorable
performance ratings as an indication of improvement in the discharge of her
duties. These circumstances do not cure her infractions but can mitigate her
administrative liability. Taken in this light, the Court finds the imposable
penalty recommended by the OCA in its
WHEREFORE, respondent Maria Concepcion M.
Divina, Court Stenographer of the
Let a copy of this Decision be
attached to the 201 file of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Acting
Chairperson Associate Justice
Associate
Justice
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu of
Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per Raffle dated
** Designated as additional member in lieu of
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Raffle dated
[1] Rollo, p. 5.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Aldecoa-Delorino v. Abellanosa, A.M. No.
P-08-2472,
[20] Alfonso v. Ignacio, 487 Phil. 1, 7
(2004).
[21] Rollo, p. 44.
[22] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, A.M. No. P-06-2269,
[23]
Promulgated by this Court on
[24] Rollo, p. 14.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Records, p. 84.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] Rollo, p. 43.
[34] Records, pp. 112-124.
[35]
[36] Alcover v. Bacatan, 513 Phil. 77, 83 (2005).
[37] Sec. 11. Stenographers. - 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 (₱10.00) PESOS for each page of not less than two hundred and fifty words before the appeal is taken and (b) FIVE (₱5.00) 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.
[38] Judge Ibay v. Lim, 394 Phil. 415, 421-422. (2000).
[39] Article XI, Section 1, 1997 Constitution.
[40] Records, p. 65.