AM P 13 3154; (March, 2018) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-13-3154. March 7, 2018. RUBE K. GAMOLO, JR., CLERK OF COURT IV, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, Complainant vs. REBA A. BELIGOLO, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rube K. Gamolo, Jr., Clerk of Court IV, filed a sworn complaint against respondent Reba A. Beligolo, Court Stenographer II, for gross neglect of duty and inefficiency for failing to transcribe and submit stenographic notes (TSNs) and court orders on time, violating Administrative Circular No. 24-90. The complaint listed multiple criminal and civil cases where TSNs or orders were submitted late or not at all by the prescribed deadlines. The complainant also charged the respondent with habitual absenteeism and tardiness under Administrative Circular No. 02-2007, citing specific months in 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2010 where she was repeatedly late or absent without approved leave. A medical certificate submitted by the respondent was contested after she was allegedly seen roaming the city while on sick leave.
In her comment, the respondent denied being an incorrigible employee, citing her satisfactory performance ratings and leadership role in a stenographers’ association. She claimed to have eventually submitted all required TSNs and orders, though she did not prove they were filed within the 20-day regulatory period. Regarding attendance, she admitted to some tardiness, attributing it to the challenges of being a single parent, and claimed her leave applications for May and June 2010 were eventually approved by the Acting Presiding Judge.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Reba A. Beligolo is administratively liable for the charges of neglect of duty and habitual tardiness/absenteeism.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is liable for simple neglect of duty but not for habitual tardiness as legally defined. The Court found her guilty of simple neglect for her failure to transcribe and submit TSNs and orders within the 20-day period mandated by Administrative Circular No. 24-90. The legal logic is that while she eventually submitted the transcripts, her failure to do so on time, as evidenced by the memoranda from her superiors directing compliance, constituted neglect of duty. However, the absence of proof of fraud or ill motive downgraded the charge from gross neglect to simple neglect. Following precedent, a fine of ₱5,000.00 was imposed, considering the number of cases delayed.
Regarding tardiness, the Court applied Civil Service Commission rules defining habitual tardiness as incurring tardiness ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months. While the respondent admitted tardiness in November 2008 and January 2009, these months fell in different semesters (the second semester of 2008 and the first of 2009) and were not consecutive. Thus, she was not legally habitually tardy. She was, however, admonished to strictly observe working hours. The charge for absenteeism was dismissed as her leave applications for the cited periods in 2010 were subsequently approved by the judge.