G.R. No. P-02-1557. December 8, 2004
CENON R. ALFONSO, complainant, vs. ARMANDO B. IGNACIO, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 161, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Cenon R. Alfonso, president of the plaintiff corporation in Civil Case No. 67654, charged respondent Armando B. Ignacio, a Court Stenographer III, with gross negligence. Alfonso alleged that the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of his August 9, 2000 testimony, prepared by Ignacio, contained grave discrepancies, distortions of facts, and omitted pages. He claimed the errors were deliberate, as confirmed by his lawyer. Upon confrontation on October 26, 2000, the presiding judge ordered the retaking of Alfonso’s testimony and directed Ignacio to use a tape recorder henceforth.
In his Comment, Ignacio admitted being the stenographer on duty and having a prior administrative infraction. He asserted he transcribed the notes five days before the next hearing and denied any deliberate distortion. He expressed willingness to read his original notes before the complainant and attached a duplicate TSN to his comment. The Office of the Court Administrator found the complaint meritorious, noting Ignacio’s failure to use a tape recorder as a precaution, and recommended a three-month suspension without pay, considering it was his second offense.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Armando B. Ignacio is administratively liable for gross negligence in the preparation of the transcript of stenographic notes.

RULING

No, the respondent is not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. While emphasizing that a public office is a public trust and that a TSN must be a faithful recording of proceedings, the Court found the complainant’s allegations unsubstantiated. The charge of deliberate distortion and gross negligence rested solely on Alfonso’s self-serving claims, unsupported by independent evidence. A comparison between the original TSN and any subsequent transcript, even if ordered by the judge, could not conclusively prove the original’s inaccuracy or the respondent’s bad faith.
The Court clarified that while Administrative Circular No. 24-90 mandates timely transcription, the use of a tape recorder is merely a facilitative tool for the stenographer’s convenience, not an absolute requirement. The respondent’s prior offense was duly considered, but the present charge failed to meet the requisite substantial evidence. The Court consistently disciplines errant personnel but also exonerates them when charges are baseless. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.