G.R. No. P-167 July 22, 1975
Alfredo T. Mendoza, complainant, vs. Francisco C. Eclavea, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alfredo T. Mendoza charged respondent Francisco C. Eclavea, a court stenographer, with two acts: first, transcribing the stenographic notes of testimony given by Gregorio Reyes Uy Un in a naturalization case, which notes were originally taken by another stenographer, and doing so without court authority; and second, sewing this unauthorized transcript into the official records of Naturalization Case No. 28, making it appear part of the record. This transcript, which contained testimony regarding the filiation of Domingo Reyes, was later presented in a separate civil case for damages filed by Domingo Reyes against complainant Mendoza. The presentation of this evidence allegedly prejudiced Mendoza, resulting in an adverse judgment ordering him to pay a significant sum.
Respondent Eclavea offered a different account. He claimed that in 1968, a man named Manuel Uy Reyes requested the transcription, stating the original stenographer was unavailable and that he merely wished to know the testimony’s content concerning a family matter. Eclavea initially refused but eventually acquiesced, believing he was assisting in preserving family harmony. He transcribed the notes openly, marking indecipherable portions, and then returned the records with the transcript attached.

ISSUE

Whether respondent court stenographer Francisco C. Eclavea is administratively liable for transcribing another stenographer’s notes and attaching the transcript to the case records without judicial authorization.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable, though the penalty is mitigated. The Court agreed with the Investigating Judge’s finding that the respondent erred by transcribing the stenographic notes without the court’s authority. A stenographer must know that only the court can authorize the transcription of notes taken by another. This failure to seek permission constituted a violation of office regulations, classified as insubordination, a light offense under the pertinent Civil Service Commission memorandum.
The legal logic centers on the proper administration of court records and the defined duties of court personnel. Stenographic notes and their transcripts are official court documents. Their transcription and incorporation into the record are processes governed by court authority to ensure authenticity, accuracy, and integrity. By bypassing this judicial oversight, the respondent, regardless of his purported good intentions, undermined this custodial protocol. His act of sewing the transcript into the record compounded the impropriety by creating an official appearance for an unauthorized document.
However, the Court considered mitigating factors. The Investigating Judge found no evidence of bad faith or malice, noting the transcription occurred before the related civil case was filed, thus lacking an intent to initially prejudice the complainant. Furthermore, the respondent had a long government service record since 1935 and a clean record as a stenographer since 1945. Given the absence of aggravating circumstances and the presence of this mitigating service record, the Court imposed the minimum penalty of reprimand with a stern admonition against repetition.