AM P 05 2043; (December, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-2043. December 7, 2005. SPO2 JONATHAN M. ALCOVER SR., Complainant, vs. EDGARDO Y. BACATAN, Court Stenographer III, Branch 24, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Respondent.
FACTS
SPO2 Jonathan M. Alcover Sr., convicted of murder, filed an administrative complaint against Court Stenographer III Edgardo Y. Bacatan for failure to timely furnish the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) in his criminal case. The complainant specifically alleged that the respondent maliciously delayed the release of the TSN for the testimony of witness Christian Paras, taken on September 18, 2001, to hinder his defense. The transcripts were only provided in June and July 2004, months after the conviction. The complainant further insinuated that the delay indicated the transcripts had been altered.
In his defense, Bacatan vehemently denied tampering with the TSN and deliberately delaying its release. He claimed he had prepared and offered transcripts during the trial, but the complainant failed to claim them. He admitted transcribing the notes for Paras’s testimony only after the promulgation of the decision, citing a heavy workload and the need to transcribe notes for other cases as reasons for the delay.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Edgardo Y. Bacatan is administratively liable for the delay in transcribing the stenographic notes.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court emphasized that all court personnel must perform their duties with utmost efficiency to uphold public trust. Administrative Circular No. 24-90 mandates stenographers to transcribe notes and attach them to the case records within twenty (20) days from the date the notes were taken. The testimony in question was given on September 18, 2001, but the respondent finished transcribing it only around July 2004—a delay of two years and nine months, constituting a clear violation of the circular.
The respondent’s justifications, including heavy workload and the complainant’s failure to claim copies, were deemed inadequate. Heavy workload is not a valid excuse to evade administrative liability, as it would prejudice public service. The duty to transcribe within the prescribed period is mandatory and not contingent upon a party’s request for copies. The Court found no substantial evidence to support the allegation of tampering, as it was based merely on supposition. Consequently, the delay, absent proof of fraud or bad faith, constitutes simple neglect of duty—a disregard of a task expected of an employee, signifying carelessness. Considering his prior reprimand for habitual tardiness, the Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation and suspended him for two months without pay.