Court Stenographer Suspended for Collecting TSN Fees Directly From Litigants

The Supreme Court has reminded all court personnel that collecting judicial fees—including payments for transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN)—is strictly an official transaction that must be handled only by the Clerk of Court. In Baguio v. Arnejo (A.M. No. P-13-3155, October 21, 2013), the Court suspended a court stenographer for three months for receiving advance payments from a litigant, issuing acknowledgment receipts, and failing to remit the collections promptly to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

The ruling serves as a clear warning to all judiciary employees: even if the amounts are small and even if part of the fee would eventually go to the employee, accepting payment directly from litigants is a grave offense.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Joefil Baguio filed an administrative complaint against respondent Maria Fe Arnejo, a stenographer of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The complaint alleged three violations: failure to transcribe notes within the 20-day period required by SC Administrative Circular No. 24-90; failure to issue an official receipt for TSN payments; and antedating the certification date on the transcripts.

Investigation revealed that on 27 May 2010, respondent asked the complainant for P500 to buy printer ink, which was treated as an advance payment for the TSN. She later admitted issuing an acknowledgment receipt for P240 received on that date. However, the actual remittance to the Office of the Clerk of Court was made only on 19 and 23 December 2010—about five months later, and only after the complaint had been filed.

The Court found that respondent had complied with the 20-day transcription requirement. But her handling of the payments was a different matter.

The Issue: Who May Collect TSN Fees?

The central question was whether a stenographer may directly receive payment from litigants for copies of transcripts.

The Court answered with a firm no. Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court explicitly provides that payment for requests for copies of TSN shall be made to the Clerk of Court. Since this is an official transaction, the payment cannot be made to the stenographer personally.

The Court emphasized that respondent, being a stenographer, was not authorized to accept payment for judicial fees—even if two-thirds of those fees would eventually be paid to her anyway. The rule exists to ensure accountability and proper recording of all court collections.

Why the Acknowledgment Receipt Did Not Save Her

Respondent argued that issuing an acknowledgment receipt showed good faith. The Court rejected this defense.

The belated remittance—made only after the complaint was filed—was itself evidence of bad faith. Holding onto a litigant's money for five months before turning it over to the proper office is not a minor procedural lapse. It undermines public trust in the judiciary.

The Court also noted that respondent failed to prove her alleged practice of regularly remitting JDF collections to the Office of the Clerk of Court, as required by OCA Circular No. 83-2010.

The Penalty: A Grave Offense

Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the respondent's infraction was classified as conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service—a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year.

However, considering this was her first infraction and there was no evidence of prior offenses, the Court reduced the penalty to three months suspension with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Court personnel must never collect judicial fees directly from litigants. All payments for TSNs and other court services must be made to the Clerk of Court, per Section 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Asking for advances from litigants is strictly prohibited. Even if the request appears benign—like asking for money to buy printer ink—it violates the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
• Acknowledgment receipts are not substitutes for official receipts. Issuing an informal receipt does not cure the unauthorized acceptance of payment.
• Prompt remittance matters. Delayed remittance of collected fees, especially when made only after a complaint is filed, will be treated as evidence of bad faith.
• The judiciary holds its employees to the highest ethical standards. Court personnel are expected to be beyond reproach, and violations that diminish public faith in the judiciary will not be tolerated.

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