G.R. No. A.M. No. P-06-2249. October 8, 2008
JUDGE PLACIDO C. MARQUEZ and ATTY. LYN L. LLAMASARES, petitioners, vs. LUCILA C. PACARIEM, Stenographer, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Judge Placido C. Marquez and Atty. Lyn L. Llamasares, former Presiding Judge and Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 40, Manila, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Lucila C. Pacariem, a Stenographer III, for gross neglect of duty, gross inefficiency, gross insubordination, and gross misconduct. The complaint detailed multiple infractions: (1) respondent repeatedly committed grammatical and typographical errors in her typewritten work, requiring multiple revisions, supported by 254 pages of error-filled output; (2) she failed to submit transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) for 45 cases within the 20-day period required under Administrative Circular No. 24-90; (3) in five cases, she did not immediately deliver her stenographic notes to the clerk of court after sessions as required by Section 17, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court; (4) she misled Atty. Llamasares into signing certifications stating she had no pending stenographic notes; (5) she violated Civil Service rules by failing to timely file applications for sick leave and special leave; (6) she engaged in “loafing” during office hours, frequently leaving the office for personal errands (e.g., to Land Bank, Supreme Court, GSIS) and falsified entries in the office Logbook of Permission Slips, including instances where her name did not appear in the Supreme Court logbook on dates she claimed to be there; (7) she received “Unsatisfactory” performance ratings for three rating periods (JanuaryJune 2004, JulyDecember 2004, JanuaryApril 2005) and was warned that subsequent unsatisfactory ratings could lead to separation; and (8) she had a prior administrative case for gross misconduct where she was found guilty of conduct unbecoming a court employee and fined.
In her defense, respondent claimed the complaint was retaliatory due to her protests against her performance ratings. She admitted to occasional errors but argued they were magnified, attributing them to heavy workload and Judge Marquez’s method of altering dictated content. She denied neglecting duties or having pending TSNs, citing certifications signed by Atty. Llamasares. She also denied loafing, explaining her office absences were for official or important personal matters (e.g., filing loans, transmitting TSN to the CA), and that discrepancies in logbook entries were due to unsynchronized watches. She noted she received “Very Satisfactory” ratings under previous judges and pointed out high turnover in Branch 40 under petitioners’ tenure.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Lucila C. Pacariem is administratively liable for the charges of gross neglect of duty, gross inefficiency, gross insubordination, and gross misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of inefficiency/neglect of duty, loafing, and making false/inaccurate entries in the office logbook. The Court dismissed the other charges for lack of merit.
On inefficiency/neglect of duty, the Court held that respondent’s failure to transcribe stenographic notes within the 20-day period under Administrative Circular No. 24-90 constituted neglect, as she admitted to delays due to heavy workload without showing this was justified. Her unsatisfactory performance ratings, which she did not successfully protest, further evidenced inefficiency. The Court emphasized that court stenographers must transcribe notes promptly to avoid delaying court proceedings.
On loafing and false entries, the Court found respondent frequently left the office during hours without proper authorization or for unauthorized purposes, as shown by the Logbook of Permission Slips and discrepancies in attendance records. Her explanation for not appearing in the Supreme Court logbook (entering via the CA with a “kumare”) was deemed unsatisfactory and indicated dishonesty. Such conduct violated office rules and constituted loafing, which undermines public service efficiency.
However, the Court dismissed charges related to typographical errors, failure to immediately deliver notes, misleading certifications, and leave violations due to insufficient evidence or lack of merit. For instance, typographical errors were considered part of the drafting process, and no proof showed respondent intentionally misled Atty. Llamasares regarding certifications.
Considering respondent’s infractions and her prior administrative case, the Court imposed a penalty of SUSPENSION FROM SERVICE FOR ONE (1) YEAR WITHOUT PAY, with a stern warning that repetition would warrant a more severe penalty. The Court stressed that court personnel must uphold high standards of professionalism and integrity.