AM P 00 1368; (February, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-00-1368. February 28, 2000. JUDGE ABELARDO H. SANTOS, complainant, vs. AURORA T. LARANANG, Court Stenographer II, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Judge Abelardo H. Santos filed two administrative complaints against respondent Aurora T. Laranang, a Court Stenographer II. The first charge was for gross neglect of duty for her failure to transcribe, within the 20-day period mandated by Administrative Circular No. 24-90, the stenographic notes from 66 hearings spanning from 1992 to 1997. In her defense, Laranang cited the increased workload due to expanded court jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691 and her own major surgery. She later submitted transcripts for many, but not all, of the listed notes. The second charge was for habitual tardiness, citing 38 instances of tardiness across September to November 1997. Laranang contested the accuracy of her Daily Time Records, claiming the entries were copied from the judge’s records without a bundy clock and that she was forced to sign them.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Aurora T. Laranang is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and habitual tardiness.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of both charges. On gross neglect of duty, the Court found that Laranang violated Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which strictly requires transcription within 20 days. Her excuses of increased workload and illness were insufficient to justify the extensive delays, some spanning several years. The fact that she eventually transcribed most notes only mitigated her liability; it did not exonerate her, as the violation is consummated by the failure to meet the deadline. Notably, she failed to transcribe 11 sets of notes entirely.
Regarding habitual tardiness, the Court rejected her defense. Her bare allegation of being forced to sign inaccurate Daily Time Records was unsubstantiated and could not overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to official records. Her own submitted list for November 1997 confirmed 19 instances of tardiness. The investigating judge’s recommendation to dismiss the neglect charge was erroneous, as delayed compliance does not erase the infraction.
Considering the sheer volume of untranscribed notes, the complete failure to transcribe 11, and the proven habitual tardiness, the Court imposed a penalty of six months suspension. She was also ordered to submit the missing transcripts within the suspension period, with a warning of more severe consequences for non-compliance.