A.M. No. P-96-1220 February 27, 1998
Beatriz E. de Guzman, complainant, vs. Sonita T. Bagadiong, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 43, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Beatriz E. de Guzman, the private complainant in Criminal Cases No. 94-133937 and 94-140408 before the RTC, Branch 43, Manila, wrote a letter alleging that respondent Court Stenographer III Sonita T. Bagadiong charged her P21.00 per page for a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes from a hearing on May 20, 1996. She also alleged she was paying P800.00 for transcripts for every hearing. In her comment, respondent justified the P21.00 charge by stating the transcripts were single-spaced and done at home due to immediate need, whereas she ordinarily charged P10.00 per double-spaced page if given enough time. She argued the transcription was in addition to her other duties, there were only three stenographers in their sala, the payment was initially on a “pakyaw” basis but reduced to P400.00, and her charges were based on “equal pay for equal work.” In supplemental comments, respondent argued arrogantly that complainant should have exhausted administrative remedies by first taking the matter to the presiding judge; that the fee issue was not proper for administrative action as transcription is incidental; that complainant had an obligation to pay the agreed amount; that a stenographer may refuse to transcribe; that the transcription is her “intellectual creation”; that she violated no law; and that such charges were customary in all courts.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Court Stenographer III Sonita T. Bagadiong is administratively liable for illegally and exorbitantly charging for the transcription of stenographic notes.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found that respondent violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 31-90, which mandates stenographers to charge only P5.00 per page (for not less than 250 words) before an appeal is taken, with one-half of the fee going to the court and the other half to the stenographer. Respondent’s claim of a customary practice of charging P10.00 per double-spaced page is invalid. The transcription of stenographic notes is a primary duty, not a minor or incidental task, as mandated by Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which requires stenographers to transcribe notes and attach them to the case record within 20 days. Stenographic notes are official documents forming part of the case record and cannot be removed without a court order; respondent admitted bringing notes home without authorization. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust and condemned respondent’s view of transcription as a private transaction. Considering the need to set an example on the true meaning of public service, and notwithstanding respondent’s 18 years of service, the Court suspended respondent from office without pay for two (2) months, with a stern warning against repetition.