Court Stenographers' Duty of Diligence: Lessons from a One-Year Suspension

The Supreme Court has long held that court stenographers play an indispensable role in the administration of justice. When they fail to transcribe notes on time, produce error-filled work, or misuse official time, public faith in the judiciary suffers. In Judge Placido C. Marquez and Atty. Lyn L. Llamasares v. Lucila C. Pacariem (A.M. No. P-06-2249, October 8, 2008), the Court imposed a one-year suspension without pay on a stenographer found guilty of inefficiency, neglect of duty, loafing, and making false entries in office logbooks. The case offers clear guidance on the standards expected of judicial employees.

The Facts of the Case

Lucila C. Pacariem was a Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Manila, under Judge Placido C. Marquez and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Lyn L. Llamasares. Her superiors filed an administrative complaint charging her with gross neglect of duty, gross inefficiency, gross insubordination, and gross misconduct.

The complaint detailed several alleged infractions. Pacariem reportedly made repeated grammatical and typographical errors in her work, requiring three to five revisions before drafts were finalized. She also failed to submit transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) within the 20-day period required by Administrative Circular No. 24-90 in forty-five cases. In five instances, she allegedly did not deliver her stenographic notes to the clerk of court immediately after sessions, as required by Section 17, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court.

The complaint further alleged that Pacariem engaged in performance ratings for two consecutive semesters in 2004. She protested these ratings, claiming discrimination, but her protest was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence of bad faith or prejudice on the part of Judge Marquez.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Pacariem was guilty of the charges against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Pacariem guilty of inefficiency or neglect of duty, loafing, and making false or inaccurate entries in office logbooks. It imposed a penalty of one year suspension without pay, with a stern warning that repetition of similar acts would warrant a more severe penalty.

On the charge of inefficiency, the Court noted that while everyone makes mistakes, there was no excuse for repeatedly making the same errors despite constant reminders from superiors. The Court also emphasized that a judge is not bound by the ratings given by previous superiors and has the discretion to rate an employee based on actual performance.

On the delayed TSNs, the Court ruled that failure to submit transcripts within the prescribed period constitutes gross neglect of duty. Even if the transcripts were eventually submitted and no party complained, this did not excuse non-compliance with Administrative Circular No. 24-90. The Court need not wait for actual prejudice to the administration of justice before imposing sanctions.

On loafing and false logbook entries, the Court found the evidence convincing. Pacariem's explanation that she entered the Supreme Court through the Court of Appeals without registering was not credible, given the strict security policies. The discrepancies in her attendance logbook entries could not be dismissed as mere differences in watch time.

The Court dismissed the other charges, including the alleged delayed filing of leave applications, finding that the strained relations between the parties may have prevented Pacariem from filing them on time.

Why the Penalty Was One Year, Not Dismissal

Under OCA Circular No. 37-2002, an employee given two consecutive "Unsatisfactory" ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. The Court acknowledged this option was available. However, it chose to mitigate the penalty for humanitarian reasons, considering Pacariem's long service in government since 1975 and the fact that she received a "Very Satisfactory" rating from the judge to whose court she was transferred. The Court construed this as an indication of improvement.

Practical Takeaways

• Stenographers must meet deadlines. The 20-day period for transcribing stenographic notes under Administrative Circular No. 24-90 is mandatory. Delays constitute gross neglect of duty, regardless of workload or whether anyone complains.
• Quality of work matters. Repeated errors despite corrections and reminders can justify an "Unsatisfactory" performance rating and lead to administrative sanctions.
• Official time is strictly monitored. Leaving the office during work hours without valid justification, or making false entries in attendance and permission logbooks, amounts to loafing and dishonesty.
• Performance ratings are discretionary. A judge may rate an employee based on observed performance, regardless of ratings given by previous superiors. An employee challenging a rating must prove bad faith or arbitrariness.
• Length of service is not a shield. While long service may mitigate penalties, it does not excuse laxity or mediocrity. Judicial employees must uphold the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and efficiency.

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