A.M. No. P-20. December 9, 1974. CIRILA RODAS, complainant, vs. FLORENDO U. AQUILIZAN, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Cirila Rodas, mother of an indigent detention prisoner, charged Court Stenographer Florendo U. Aquilizan with misconduct. She alleged that despite a court order directing him to furnish a free transcript of stenographic notes for her son’s criminal case, Aquilizan initially demanded payment, stating “no money, no transcript,” and made it difficult for her to obtain the copy. The court had ordered the free transcript on November 29, 1971, with a deadline of January 15, 1972. In his defense, Aquilizan submitted a detailed chronology showing the criminal case’s numerous postponements were due to motions by both prosecution and defense, not his actions. He proved he submitted the transcript on January 14, 1972, and complainant received it on January 17, 1972. The formal investigation also revealed that in the transcript he later provided, Aquilizan had capitalized certain words in the testimony adverse to the accused.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Florendo U. Aquilizan is administratively liable for his conduct in relation to the request for a free transcript of stenographic notes.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the investigator’s factual findings that Aquilizan did not cause an unreasonable delay, as he complied with the court order before the deadline. However, the Court found his prior conduct and attitude highly reprehensible. His written notation to defense counsel, haggling over a fee of one peso per page despite the impending court order for a free transcript, demonstrated an arrogant prioritization of personal economic interest over public service. This act constituted a wrong attitude for a public servant, whose primary concern should be the welfare of litigants, especially indigent ones.
Furthermore, his act of capitalizing words in the transcript to emphasize testimony adverse to the accused was uncalled for and contemptuous. It created a strong suspicion of bias, suggesting vindictiveness for being compelled to provide the transcript free of charge and implying he might favor certain litigants over others. A court stenographer’s duty is to make an accurate, faithful, and neutral record, not to editorialize or influence perception. Considering his long government service, now tainted, and to set an example, the Court suspended Florendo U. Aquilizan from office for six months without pay, with a stern warning against repetition. The decision was also ordered to be noted in his bar record and circularized to all inferior courts.