489 Phil. 85
PER CURIAM:
On December 2, 2003, complainant issued Office Circular No. 3-2003 directing respondent to transcribe the foregoing notes within 20 days from receipt thereof,[4] but respondent failed to comply therewith.
- Criminal Case No. 5391
Pp. vs. Lamberto Maximo
TSN dated March 13, 2003
(Cross-exam of Bernarda Llanza)- Criminal Case No. 6714
Pp. vs. Alberto Puno
TSN dated September 13, 2001
(Prosecution’s Formal Offer)- Criminal Case No. 5336
Pp. vs. Dolores Gutierrez[2]
- dated September 2, 1999
(Cross-examination of Lerida Joaquin)- dated November 11, 1999
(Prosecution’s Formal Offer)- Criminal Case No. 5492
Pp. vs. Olivia Bitangcol
- TSN dated July 15, 1999
- TSN dated September 9, 1999
- Criminal Case Nos. 8036-39-40
Pp. vs. Concepcion Garcia
TSN dated July 18, 2002- Criminal Case No. 9372
Pp. vs. Roberto Idos
TSN dated May 9, 2002
(Cont. of cross of Mercedita Valencia)- Criminal Case No. 6445
Pp. vs. Consolacion Dayrit
- TSN dated August 25, 2002
- TSN dated August 28, 2003[3]
VI. Leave to be Spent Abroad.For violation of the foregoing circulars in traveling abroad without securing the necessary permission for foreign travel, respondent should be held administratively liable.
All foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of the number of days, must be with prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions pursuant to the resolution in A.M. 99-12-08-SC (Memorandum Order No. 14-2000 dated 6 November 2000). In line with the policy, the judge or court personnel concerned must submit the following:x x x x x x x x x
For Court Personnel:Likewise, OCA Circular No. 49-2003,[13] states –
- application or request addressed to the Court Administrator, stating therein the purpose of the travel abroad;
- application for leave covering the period of the travel abroad duly recommended by the Executive Judge/Presiding Judge;
- clearance as to money and property accountability;
- clearance as to pending criminal and administrative case filed against him/her, if any; and
- for court stenographer, clearance as to pending stenographic notes for transcription from his/her court and from the Court of Appeals.
B. Vacation Leave to be Spent Abroad.
Pursuant to the resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC dated 6 November 2000, all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of the number of days, must be with prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions.
1. Judges and court personnel who wish to travel abroad must secure a travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator. The judge or court personnel must submit the following:x x x x x x x x x(b) For Court Personnel:5. Any violation of the leave laws, rules or regulations, or any misrepresentation or deception in connection with an application for leave shall be a ground for disciplinary action (Sec. 67, Omnibus Rules on Leave).
• application or letter-request addressed to the Court Administrator stating the purpose of the travel abroad
• application for leave covering the period of the travel abroad, favorably recommended by the Presiding Judge or Executive Judge;
• clearance as to money and property accountability
• clearance as to pending criminal and administrative case filed against him/her, if any
• for court stenographer, clearance as to pending stenographic notes for transcription from his/her court and from the Court of Appeals
• Supreme Court clearancex x x x x x x x x
Respondent Acuña’s act of going abroad without permission of this Court is in violation of Memorandum Order No. 26 which provides that:Respondent is also guilty of gross neglect of duty for failing to transcribe the stenographic notes within the required 20 day period and for leaving the country knowing that she had pending transcripts to accomplish. Administrative Circular No. 24-90, dated 12 July 1990, states –Acuña is likewise guilty of dishonesty for applying for a sick leave on the pretext that he was seriously ill, in order to conceal his absence from the country. This is just one of the several grounds for disciplinary action that he committed under P.D. 807, Section 36(b) Article IX, to wit:x x x x x x x x x
Requests for permission to travel abroad from members and employees of the judiciary shall henceforth be obtained from the Supreme Court.
“(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:(1) DishonestyThe above are serious infractions which warrant respondent Acuña’s dismissal from service…. (Emphasis added)[15]x x x x x x x x x
(3) Neglect of dutyx x x x x x x x x
(24) Pursuit of private business, vocation or profession without the permission required by the Civil Service rules and regulationsx x x x x x x x x
(27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
2. (a) All stenographers are required to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. The attaching may be done by putting all said transcripts in a separate folder or envelope, which will then be joined to the record of the case. (Emphasis added)Similarly in Ibay v. Lim,[16] a court stenographer was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and violation of a Supreme Court administrative circular for traveling abroad with pending untranscribed notes and without securing the needed clearance. Pertinent portion of the decision reads:x x x x x x x x x
7. A stenographer shall not be allowed to travel abroad if he has pending untranscribed notes, unless otherwise ordered by the Court upon urgent grounds.
In the instant case, considering that respondent is guilty of dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and violation of Supreme Court administrative circulars, she should be dismissed from the service as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator.[18]B. Serious Neglect of DutyJustice Molina recommended that respondent Lim be dismissed from the service for gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct and violation of administrative circulars of the Supreme Court. The OCA agreed and adopted the said Report and Recommendation.x x x x x x x x x
For all her shortcomings in the transcription of her stenographic notes as demonstrated herein above, the respondent has shown her utter lack of dedication to the functions of her office. As a trial court stenographer she knows, or ought to know, that she performs an important role in running the machinery of our trial court system and that transcripts of stenographic notes are vital for the speedy disposition of cases. In the several cases that are the subject of Judge Ibay’s complaint it took the respondent years to submit her TSNs. Even Judge Ibay’s predecessor in Branch 135, now retired Justice Omar Amin, had complained to the Court Administrator about respondent’s delinquency in the transcription of stenographic notes (Exh. F, letter dated January 30, 1996, of then Judge Amin to the Court Administrator). Clearly, the respondent not only failed to comply with the rigorous standards required of all public officers and employees but worse, her act eroded the faith of the affected litigants in the judiciary.
D. Flagrant Violation of Paragraph 7 of Administrative Circular No. 24-90.x x x x x x x x x
It is thus clear that her two travels abroad were both in violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90 as she had pending untranscribed notes, not especially authorized by the court, and without securing permission from the Court Administrator (Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated February 26, 1991, circularized per Circular No. 30-91 dated September 30, 1991).
This recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator is well-taken. (Emphasis supplied)[17]