A.M. No. P-01-1474; October 26, 2001
Judge Antonio C. Reyes, Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City, complainant, vs. Josefina F. Delim, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Antonio C. Reyes filed an administrative complaint against respondent Josefina F. Delim, a Stenographer III in his branch, for insubordination, gross dishonesty, and gross negligence. The complaint stemmed from the loss of stenographic notes taken by Delim during a November 11, 1999 hearing in a special proceedings case. The judge directed her to transcribe the notes immediately due to the testimony’s importance. Delim initially promised compliance but later reported losing the notes, claiming she left them in a taxi. Judge Reyes expressed skepticism, suspecting the notes were given to a party in the case, and cited instances where his orders appeared to have been leaked, allegedly implicating Delim. He initially imposed a one-month preventive suspension and sought her dismissal. However, he later filed a manifestation to withdraw the complaint, citing Delim’s improved conduct and suggesting the suspension was sufficient penalty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Josefina F. Delim is administratively liable for the loss of the stenographic notes.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable for gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of safeguarding stenographic notes, as they are vital to the administration of justice and constitute the official record of court proceedings. Respondent’s failure to promptly and officially report the loss to her branch clerk of court, and her initial attempt to conceal her inability to produce the transcript, constituted gross negligence. Her explanation about leaving the notes in a taxi, even if taken at face value, demonstrated a serious dereliction of duty and a lack of due care required of court personnel. The Court found the case analogous to Alivia v. Nieto, where a stenographer who lost notes was suspended for six months. The complainant judge’s subsequent withdrawal of the complaint and his preventive suspension order did not divest the Court of its constitutional duty to discipline court personnel. The one-month suspension imposed by the judge was preventive, not punitive, and only the Supreme Court can impose disciplinary penalties. Consequently, respondent Josefina F. Delim was SUSPENDED for six months without pay and sternly warned.