Dereliction of Duty in Philippine Courts: The Responsibilities of Court Stenographers

---

A court stenographer’s job is not merely to take down notes during hearings. Under Philippine law, the transcription and timely submission of those notes are equally critical duties — especially when a case is on appeal. When a stenographer fails in this task, the entire appellate process stalls, and the accused may remain in detention longer than necessary.

In Ongkiko, Kalaw, Dizon, Panga & Velasco Law Offices, et al. v. Sangil-Makasiar (A.M. No. P-96-1195, April 2, 1996), the Supreme Court dealt with exactly this situation. The case serves as a clear reminder of the standards expected of court personnel and the consequences of neglecting their duties.

The Facts of the Case

The complainant, a law office, filed an administrative charge against Stella Marie S. Sangil-Makasiar, a court stenographer of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35 of Manila. The charge arose from her failure to transmit the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of a trial conducted on November 15, 1993, in a criminal case for Kidnapping for Ransom.

The trial court decided the case on November 24, 1993, and the accused appealed. However, the appellant’s brief could not be prepared because the stenographer had not yet transcribed the notes from the November 15 hearing. The Supreme Court granted the stenographer several extensions — first 30 days, then another 30 days, with a warning that it would be the last. When she still failed to submit the transcripts, the Court withheld her salary until she complied. Despite all this, it took her until June 28, 1995 — more than a year and seven months after the notes were taken — to finish transcribing them.

The Issue

The central question was whether the court stenographer was guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to transcribe and transmit her stenographic notes within the period prescribed by law.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of dereliction of duty. The Court cited Sections 7 and 8, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, which require a stenographer to transcribe his or her notes and file the original and copies with the clerk "without unnecessary delay" upon appeal.

The Court also applied Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which took effect on August 1, 1990. Item 2(a) of that circular explicitly requires all stenographers to transcribe their notes and attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken.

In this case, the stenographer took the notes on November 15, 1993, but finished transcribing them only on June 28, 1995. The Court found this to be a plain violation of the circular.

The Court’s Rejection of Excuses

The respondent argued that she had a heavy workload. She said her branch was a Special Criminal Court with only four stenographers, each handling an average of 15 to 20 cases scheduled for hearing, plus in-chamber orders, resolutions, and even preparing court decisions. She also cited her domestic responsibilities as a wife and mother, and occasional illness.

The Court was sympathetic but unpersuaded. It held that heavy workload and family obligations are not adequate excuses for being remiss in one’s duties as a public servant. Otherwise, every government employee charged with negligence could use the same excuse to escape punishment, to the great prejudice of public service.

The Court emphasized that the respondent had been given not one but three extensions — a sign of leniency, not strictness. Despite these chances, she still delayed for nearly two years. The Court imposed a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Stenographers have a strict 20-day deadline. Under Administrative Circular No. 24-90, court stenographers must transcribe their notes and attach the transcripts to the case record within 20 days from the time the notes are taken.
• Delays on appeal are serious. When a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court directs the stenographer to transcribe the notes. Failure to do so stalls the appellate process and can prejudice the rights of the accused.
• Workload is not a valid excuse. Heavy caseloads and personal circumstances may explain delays, but they do not justify them. Court personnel are expected to manage their duties diligently.
• The Court can impose sanctions. Consequences for dereliction of duty may include fines, suspension, or withholding of salary, depending on the severity of the offense.
• Public service demands accountability. The case underscores that government employees, especially those in the judiciary, must perform their duties with utmost responsibility and respect for the rights of litigants.

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