ADM. MATTER No. P-02-1549, December 16, 2005
Atty. Benjamin A. Opeña vs. Fe Rizalina V. Luna, Stenographer III, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 130

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Benjamin Opeña, counsel in a civil case, requested from respondent Fe Rizalina Luna, the court stenographer, a transcript (TSN) of a hearing. The 18-page transcript was prepared. Respondent demanded ₱500.00 as payment, justifying the amount by claiming the proceeding was ex parte and that it was customary to charge the presenting party for all copies needed for distribution to various offices. Complainant protested, noting the rate should be based on the number of pages per the Rules of Court and that the hearing was not ex parte. Due to the urgent need for the TSN for a hearing the next day, complainant reluctantly paid the demanded amount and subsequently filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct.
In her comment, respondent denied compelling payment but admitted receiving the ₱500.00. She defended her action by citing a purported common practice among stenographers for ex parte proceedings and her over 20 years of unblemished service. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found her justification misplaced.

ISSUE

Whether respondent court stenographer is administratively liable for demanding and accepting a transcription fee not in accordance with the prescribed rates under the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court agreed with the OCA’s finding of a violation. Section 10, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court prescribes a uniform rate for stenographic transcripts: ₱5.00 per page of not less than 250 words before an appeal is taken. The rule makes no distinction for ex parte proceedings. Respondent’s reliance on an alleged customary practice is invalid and cannot override the clear mandate of the law. Ignorance of the law excuses no one, especially court personnel expected to know court rules.
The circumstances constituted a form of compulsion, as complainant needed the transcript urgently and had no practical alternative but to pay the excessive fee to fulfill his professional duty. This act fell short of the high standards of professionalism and public accountability required of all judiciary employees. The death of the complainant does not divest the Court of jurisdiction or exonerate the respondent, as administrative proceedings involve public interest and the government becomes the real party-in-interest once a complaint is filed.
Respondent is found guilty of violating Rule 141. Considering her long service and previously unblemished record as mitigating factors, she is ordered to pay a fine of ₱2,000.00 with a warning of a more severe penalty for any repetition.