Dropping from the Rolls for Unsatisfactory Ratings: Court Stenographer Case

The Supreme Court, in an administrative matter decided on February 10, 2009, addressed the consequences of consistently poor work performance by court personnel. The case involved a court stenographer who was dropped from the rolls after receiving two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings. The ruling clarifies the legal basis and procedural requirements for such a separation, which is non-disciplinary in nature.

The Case of the Court Stenographer

The case concerned Paciencia E. Ajanab, a Court Stenographer I at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Maluso, Basilan. During a personnel meeting in November 2007, the presiding judge called her attention to the disarray of files, both soft and hard, related to election cases assigned to her. Ajanab explained that she was computer illiterate and requested to use a typewriter instead. Her caseload was reassigned to other stenographers to prevent further delays.

Despite these accommodations and constant reminders, Ajanab's performance did not improve. She received an unsatisfactory performance rating for the semester of July to December 2007. The judge sent her a notice explaining the basis for the rating and warning that failure to improve would warrant separation from service. Ajanab did not submit any written explanation or objections.

Her performance continued to deteriorate. The judge noted that he had to rely on his own notes to decide two criminal cases because the transcript of stenographic notes was inaccurate, used a different font, and had tampered page numbers. Ajanab received another unsatisfactory rating for the January to June 2008 semester. In her defense, she admitted limited computer knowledge, stating she was an "old timer" left behind by technology. She transcribed notes with her son's help at home, explaining the unusual font and absence from the office database.

The Legal Framework for Dropping from the Rolls

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) cited the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Personnel Action (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998). Under these rules, an employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. This action is non-disciplinary—it does not result in the forfeiture of benefits nor disqualify the employee from reemployment in government. The exact provision number is not specified in the decision text available in the library.

The rules require specific documentary requirements before separation can occur:

• Written notice informing the employee of unsatisfactory performance for a semester
• A warning that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant separation
• Sufficient information to enable the employee to prepare an explanation
• Notice given not later than 30 days from the end of the semester

OCA Circular No. 172-2003, also cited in the decision, adds that the notice must be issued by the supervisor or rater.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found that all documentary requirements were met. The notices dated January 15, 2008 and July 30, 2008 were issued within the required period and contained sufficient information: the unsatisfactory ratings for two consecutive semesters, a warning of potential separation, and an opportunity to comment.

The Court approved the OCA's recommendation to drop Ajanab from the rolls and declare her position vacant. While expressing empathy for her situation, the Court emphasized that court personnel must be examples of responsibility, competence, and efficiency. Keeping an incompetent and grossly inefficient employee would be a great disservice to the public.

Practical Takeaways

• Consistent poor performance has consequences. Two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings can lead to separation from service in the government, even for court personnel.
• Procedural due process is essential. Employers must issue written notices within 30 days after each semester, warn of consequences, and give the employee an opportunity to explain.
• Dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary. This means the employee retains benefits and may be reemployed in government, distinguishing it from dismissal for misconduct.
• Technological incompetence is not a valid defense. The Court recognized the demands of public service over personal limitations, especially when accommodations were already provided.
• Documentation matters. Supervisors should keep clear records of performance ratings, notices, and the employee's responses to support any administrative action.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.