The Clerk's Duty and Timely Record Submission in Philippine Courts

In the administration of justice, the timely submission of court records can determine the fate of an appeal. When stenographic notes remain untranscribed for years, a party may lose the chance to present their case before an appellate court. The Supreme Court addressed this in Juntilla v. Calleja (A.M. No. P-96-1225, September 23, 1996), clarifying the distinct duties of clerks of court and court stenographers in ensuring that complete records reach the appellate court.

The Facts of the Case

Anatolia Juntilla filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Teresita Calleja, Branch Clerk of Court, and Salome Montezon, Court Stenographer, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City. The complaint arose from Special Proceedings Case No. 1353, an intestate estate proceeding where Juntilla sought letters of administration over her deceased sister's property.

The trial court dismissed the case after Juntilla failed to file her formal offer of evidence. She filed a notice of appeal, but alleged that the respondents conspired to withhold stenographic notes favorable to her. She claimed that from 1990 until judgment was rendered, no stenographic notes were submitted to the Court of Appeals, which grossly affected her chance of winning her appeal. Her case was eventually dismissed for failure to present convincing evidence.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the clerk of court and the court stenographer were administratively liable for the failure to timely submit the complete records of the case to the Court of Appeals.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found both respondents liable, but for different reasons and with different degrees of culpability.

Liability of the court stenographer. The Court ruled that Montezon failed in her duty under Section 17, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, which requires stenographers to deliver all stenographic notes to the clerk of court immediately at the close of each session. The transcripts must be attached to the case records within ten days from the time the notes were taken (later extended to twenty days under Administrative Circular No. 24-90).

Montezon took stenographic notes during trials on January 31, 1985, November 7, 1985, and March 17, 1987. After more than ten years, these notes remained untranscribed and untransmitted to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court even promulgated its decision without the transcripts of stenographic notes. The Court held that Montezon "dismally failed" to comply with her public duty despite an order from the clerk of court directing her to submit her transcriptions.

Liability of the clerk of court. The Court also found Calleja remiss in her supervisory duties. While a clerk of court may not have direct control over stenographers, the Court emphasized that the clerk must "demand that the stenographer comply" with her duty to transcribe notes. The clerk must not only direct the stenographer but must also ensure strict compliance.

More critically, Calleja wrote to the Assistant Chief of the Judicial Records Division of the Court of Appeals stating that the "record" of the intestate case had been forwarded, when she knew that Montezon had not yet transcribed the stenographic notes. The Court noted that the failure of the clerk to transmit the record of a case constitutes negligence warranting disciplinary action. The transmission of the record is the function of the clerk of court, not the stenographer, whose role is essentially limited to transcription.

The Penalties

The Court fined Calleja P1,000.00 for neglect of duty and admonished her to be strict in supervising court personnel. Montezon was fined P3,000.00 for dereliction of duty and warned that repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Clerks of court must verify, not just direct. A clerk of court cannot simply issue an order to a stenographer and consider the matter done. The clerk must actively ensure that transcripts are actually submitted and that complete records are transmitted to the appellate court.
• Stenographers have a strict timeline. Stenographic notes must be transcribed and attached to the case record within the prescribed period. Delay in transcription can prejudice a party's appeal and constitutes dereliction of duty.
• Accuracy in transmittal matters. A clerk of court who certifies that records have been forwarded when they are incomplete may be held administratively liable for negligence.
• Different roles, shared responsibility. While the stenographer is responsible for transcription, the clerk of court is responsible for transmitting the complete record. Neither can pass the blame entirely to the other.
• Public office is a public trust. Court personnel must perform their duties with diligence, as any omission that diminishes public faith in the Judiciary will not be countenanced.

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