G.R. No. P-96-1180; February 16, 1996
Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino vs. Armando B. Ignacio, Court Stenographer, RTC, Pasig City, Branch 161

FACTS

Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino, counsel in jointly tried criminal and civil cases, filed a complaint against court stenographer Armando B. Ignacio for anomalies in transcribing stenographic notes from an August 16, 1993 hearing. The complainant alleged the existence of two discrepant sets of transcripts. The first set contained 22 pages, while a second, corrected set contained 15 pages. Critical variances were noted: in the first set, a witness answered “I was the one charged,” but in the second set, the answer was altered to “I was not the one charged.” Furthermore, a portion where the court admonished a specific individual in the courtroom was completely deleted from the second set.
In his comment, respondent Ignacio admitted making the corrections but asserted they were done in good faith to rectify inadvertent omissions in the initial transcription. He claimed he proactively made these corrections, including adding a first name, rather than waiting for a formal motion from a party, and did so before the records were forwarded for review. The case was investigated, and the investigating judge found respondent liable for grave misconduct, recommending a one-year suspension.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Armando B. Ignacio is administratively liable for the discrepancies between the two sets of transcribed stenographic notes.

RULING

Yes, but for simple lack of diligence, not grave misconduct. The Supreme Court modified the finding and the penalty. The Court held that bad faith could not be readily ascribed to the respondent. Good faith is presumed, and the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving malice, as he did not present evidence to demonstrate what specific prejudice was caused to his client or how the witness’s credibility was definitively affected by the corrections.
However, the Court emphasized that a court stenographer performs a function essential to the administration of justice, tasked with making an accurate and faithful record of proceedings. By producing two conflicting sets of transcripts, respondent failed to exercise the due care and diligence required for his position. This lack of diligence exposed him to suspicion and could undermine litigants’ faith in the judicial system. Mitigating his liability were his thirty-three years of otherwise unblemished service in the judiciary. Consequently, the Court suspended respondent Armando B. Ignacio for two months without pay for lack of diligence in the performance of his official functions, with a stern warning against repetition.