G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-21-2604 (Formerly A.M. No. 21-01-03-SC)
Date: August 22, 2023

Case Parties:
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. HON. JESUS B. MUPAS, former Presiding Judge, ATTY. MELBEN REY M. MADRID, Branch Clerk of Court, LIZA I. DOCTOLERO, Court Stenographer, and HERMITO DELA CRUZ III, Criminal Clerk-in-Charge, all of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, respondents.

FACTS

This is a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Singh regarding an administrative case. The main opinion (ponencia) imposed an admonition on respondent Liza I. Doctolero, a Court Stenographer. The factual basis for this, as noted by the Judicial Integrity Board and agreed upon by the ponencia, was that Doctolero should have exerted efforts to ensure that money placed in her locked cabinet would not remain there for a long time by informing her superiors—Presiding Judge Jesus B. Mupas, Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Melben Rey Madrid, and/or Legal Researcher Dana Lyne A. Areola.
Justice Singh dissents from this specific finding. The opinion recounts that Doctolero only allowed the money to be placed inside her cabinet after being told by co-respondent Hermito dela Cruz III that Judge Mupas had ordered it. Dela Cruz communicated this instruction to Doctolero within the hearing distance of other court personnel, including Areola. Doctolero voiced her concern about keeping the money but ultimately complied with the purported order from her superior.

ISSUE

Whether Court Stenographer Liza I. Doctolero should be administratively admonished for her role in the safekeeping of money in her locked cabinet.

RULING

Justice Singh concurs with the majority’s disposition regarding the other respondents but dissents on the admonition of Doctolero. The opinion maintains there is no factual basis to admonish her.
The reasoning is as follows:
1. Doctolero was merely following orders. She acted on the instruction communicated by dela Cruz, purportedly from Judge Mupas. As a subordinate, she fulfilled her duty by confirming the task with her superiors.
2. The responsibility was not hers. The duty to safely keep court records, exhibits, and properties is primarily lodged with the Clerk of Court. A court stenographer’s essential function is limited to the transcription of court proceedings.
3. The ponencia’s expectation is impractical. It was Judge Mupas who allegedly gave the instruction; Areola was present when it was communicated; and Atty. Madrid was working from home. Therefore, informing them as suggested would have been redundant or logistically impractical.
4. Admonishment is unwarranted. A survey of jurisprudence shows court stenographers are admonished for failures in their core duties (e.g., inaccurate transcription, tardiness) or for acts compromising judicial integrity. Doctolero’s act of following a superior’s order for safekeeping, after voicing concern, does not fall into these categories. She did not abandon her duty nor act unbecomingly.
Justice Singh’s Proposed Disposition:
1. Dismiss the case against Judge Mupas due to his supervening death.
2. Dismiss the case against Atty. Madrid for insufficiency of evidence but ADMONISH him to be more circumspect.
3. DISMISS the case against Liza I. Doctolero for insufficiency of evidence (and not admonish her).
4. Find Hermito dela Cruz III GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty and impose dismissal with forfeiture of benefits (except leave credits) and disqualification from re-employment.
5. Order the motu proprio institution of an administrative case against Dana Lyne A. Areola.