Tardiness and Neglect of Duty in the Judiciary: The Tolentino Case

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that every person connected with the dispensation of justice carries a heavy burden of responsibility. In Manapat v. Tolentino (A.M. No. P-00-1388, June 19, 2002), the Court suspended a court stenographer for two months without pay after finding her guilty of habitual absenteeism and inefficiency in the performance of duty. The case is a reminder that administrative accountability applies to all court personnel, not only to judges.

The complaint

Yolanda Manapat, Branch Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon, filed a letter-complaint against Lea Tolentino, a court stenographer in the same branch. The complaint alleged habitual absenteeism, tardiness, and inefficiency.

According to the complainant, Tolentino had been absent without prior notice from 1994 until the complaint was filed in 1998, disrupting the work schedule of the branch's other stenographers. Litigants could not obtain copies of transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) because of her delays. A memorandum issued in April 1995 gave her until the end of May 1995 to finish her pending transcripts, but she did not report for work until June 29, 1998. Even then, transcripts for hearings held in 1996 and 1997 remained unfinished.

The respondent's defense

Tolentino denied the allegations. She claimed she had submitted all transcripts due from her by August 1998, and that her absences covered only certain periods in 1997 and 1998 when her family faced medical crises, including her husband's illness, an invalid son, and two deaths in the family. She argued that her absences were covered by sick and vacation leave.

She also contended that there was no urgency in completing the transcripts because the presiding judge had been promoted to the Regional Trial Court and the branch was inactive for several months. She added that the parties in the affected cases were not following up on the transcripts, and that the complaint was meant to harass her.

What the investigation found

The case was referred to Executive Judge Benjamin Aquino for investigation. He found that while Tolentino's absences were prompted by family medical problems, they were not covered by approved leave. She admitted she did not report for work from January to March 1998, yet her leave application was approved only on February 11, 1998. For her absence from April 1998 to nearly the end of July 1998, she merely informed the complainant of her intention to extend her leave without actually filing an application.

On the charge of inefficiency, the investigation found that Tolentino transcribed her notes only after receiving a directive from the Office of the Court Administrator. Transcripts for hearings held in 1996 were submitted only in August 1998, and she ignored two memoranda directing her to finish her overdue transcripts.

The rules applied

The investigating judge cited the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 in defining habitual absenteeism, describing an employee as habitually absent when unauthorized absences exceed the allowable monthly leave credit under the Leave Law for a specified number of months within a semester or for consecutive months during the year. The specific section number of that rule is not reproduced in the decision as published in the Court's records, and this article does not supply one.

On the transcription of notes, the Court applied Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which requires all stenographers to transcribe their stenographic notes and attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. The circular also requires a verified monthly certification of compliance, and provides that salaries may be withheld for failure or refusal to submit it.

The Court's ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the investigating judge's findings and rejected Tolentino's defenses. It held that the lack of follow-up from the parties did not excuse the delay, and that domestic responsibilities could not justify failing to transcribe notes within the required period.

The Court acknowledged her remorse and her appeal for compassion as the breadwinner of her family, but stressed that it could not compromise its duty to the public. It also noted that this was not her first offense: she had previously been fined one month's salary and warned that a repetition would merit a more severe penalty. The Court suspended her for two months without pay.

Practical takeaways

• Court employees must file applications for leave in advance whenever possible. Failure to do so can result in a finding of habitual absenteeism even if the absences were due to genuine emergencies.
• Stenographers must transcribe notes and attach the transcripts to the case record within twenty days from the time the notes are taken, under Administrative Circular No. 24-90.
• The absence of follow-ups from litigants does not excuse delay. The duty to transcribe is owed to the court and the public, not only to the parties.
• A prior warning from the Supreme Court is a serious matter. A repeat offense generally leads to a heavier penalty.
• Personal and family difficulties, however sympathetic, will not override the standard of accountability required of those involved in the administration of justice.

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