G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-07-2369
Date: November 16, 2011

Case Title: Concerned Citizen, Complainant, vs. Maria Concepcion M. Divina, Court Stenographer, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case consolidates three complaints against respondent Maria Concepcion M. Divina, a Court Stenographer at the RTC of Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 3:
1. An undated anonymous letter from a “Concerned Citizen” charging her with Gross Misconduct for allegedly demanding ₱20,000.00 in exchange for a Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN).
2. A letter-complaint dated August 24, 2005, from Atty. Teodoro O. Camacho III, alleging arrogant behavior from Divina.
3. A complaint-affidavit from Ricardo M. Ricardo charging her with extortion and inefficiency.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) synthesized the facts. Executive Judge Remigio M. Escalada, Jr. conducted a discreet and later a full-blown investigation. He found that while the identity of the anonymous complainant remained unknown, Ricardo M. Ricardo, a litigant in Civil Case No. 7400, testified that Divina asked him for money on two occasions (₱100.00 and later ₱500.00) in connection with his request for a TSN, despite the official cost being only ₱10.00 per page. Ricardo also experienced delays in receiving the TSN despite repeated follow-ups. An inventory revealed Divina had a significant backlog of untranscribed notes dating back to 2001.
Atty. Camacho testified about a verbal altercation on August 18, 2005, where Divina responded arrogantly when he suggested another lawyer could request a TSN from her. He also stated that Divina was slow in preparing transcripts for IBP Legal Aid cases, possibly because they were provided for free.
Judge Escalada, in his Investigation Report, found Divina liable for violating Section 11, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court for unauthorized collection of payments from Ricardo and for unjustified delay in preparing TSNs. He absolved her of the extortion charge from the “Concerned Citizen” due to insufficient proof and found the charge of belligerent attitude not fully established, though it indicated inefficiency. He recommended a six-month suspension without pay and her subsequent transfer to a first-level court. The OCA, in its evaluation, agreed with the findings but recommended a heavier penalty of one-year suspension without pay, noting her “Unsatisfactory” performance rating and the serious impact of her backlog on the administration of justice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Maria Concepcion M. Divina is administratively liable for the charges against her, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

The Court found respondent Maria Concepcion M. Divina GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty and Violation of Section 11, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The Court modified the recommended penalty.
The Court upheld the findings of Judge Escalada and the OCA. It ruled that Divina’s act of collecting unauthorized payments from litigant Ricardo M. Ricardo for TSNs constituted a clear violation of Section 11, Rule 141, which mandates that payments for TSNs be made only to the Clerk of Court. Her failure to timely transcribe her stenographic notes, resulting in a backlog dating back to 2001, constituted Gross Neglect of Duty. This inefficiency unduly delayed the disposition of cases and undermined the efficient administration of justice. The Court emphasized that court stenographers have a duty to transcribe notes promptly, as delays prejudice the parties and the court.
Regarding the charges of extortion from the anonymous complainant and belligerent attitude from Atty. Camacho, the Court agreed with the investigating judge that these were not sufficiently proven. However, the incident with Atty. Camacho further demonstrated her inefficiency.
As for the penalty, the Court considered the OCA’s recommendation of a one-year suspension as too lenient given the gravity of her infractions, which exhibited a pattern of misconduct over time. The Court also noted her unsatisfactory performance ratings. Applying relevant jurisprudence and the principle that public office is a public trust, the Court imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The Court also directed the Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 3, Balanga City, to ensure proper monitoring of stenographic reporters.