G.R. No. L-33245, September 30, 1971
CELESTINO LUZANO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE HONORIO ROMERO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch III, VICENTE MACALINO, Assistant Fiscal of Pampanga, and DIONISIO CAYANAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Celestino Luzano was the complaining witness in an estafa case (Criminal Case No. 1087) filed against respondent Dionisio Cayanan in the Municipal Court of Apalit, Pampanga. The proceedings were fully recorded by the court’s lone duly appointed clerk-stenographer, Zenaida M. Manlapaz. After trial, Cayanan was convicted. He appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga, presided by respondent Judge Honorio Romero.
Initially, the respondent judge granted Luzano’s motion to decide the appeal based on the records transmitted from the municipal court, setting aside a trial de novo. However, the judge later reversed himself. Relying on a Department of Justice circular and an opinion from the Provincial Fiscal, he ordered a trial de novo. The circular interpreted Republic Act No. 6031 to mean that for a municipal court to be considered a “court of record,” it must have a complete complement of personnel: a clerk of court, two stenographers, and an interpreter. Since the Apalit court had only one stenographer, it was deemed not a court of record, thus requiring a trial de novo on appeal under the Judiciary Act.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Court of Apalit, with proceedings fully recorded by a single duly appointed stenographer, qualifies as a “court of record” under the Judiciary Act, as amended by R.A. No. 6031, such that an appeal to the CFI should be decided on the basis of the transmitted records without a trial de novo.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Municipal Court of Apalit is a court of record, and the CFI must decide the appealed case on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted, not by trial de novo. The Court rejected the rigid interpretation advanced by the respondents. The overriding legislative intent of R.A. No. 6031 was to accelerate the administration of justice by converting municipal and city courts into courts of record to eliminate trial de novo on appeal, provided proceedings are fully recorded by a qualified stenographer.
The provision in Section 75, as amended, which mentions a clerk of court and two stenographers, outlines an ideal staffing pattern contingent on government resources. It is not a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. The law does not state that the absence of this full complement strips the court of its character as a court of record or divests it of jurisdiction. The essential criterion is that the proceedings are recorded, enabling a review based on a complete transcript. This was satisfied, as the Apalit court’s proceedings were stenographically recorded by its duly appointed clerk-stenographer, and the municipal judge rendered a written decision in compliance with the law.
Accepting the respondents’ view would lead to absurd and paralyzing consequences. It would imply that many courts, including some CFIs operating with only one stenographer, could be deemed not of record, thereby undermining the appellate jurisdiction of higher courts. The orders for a trial de novo were set aside. The respondent judge was directed to decide the criminal case on the basis of the evidence and records from the municipal court.