Court Stenographers Must Transcribe on Time and Guard Unofficial Transcripts

The Supreme Court has long held that court stenographers occupy a vital role in the administration of justice. Their faithful and timely transcription of proceedings ensures that the record speaks the truth. In Ang Kek Chen v. Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit and Stenographer Primitiva A. Caliao-Gloria (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1649, September 12, 2007), the Court clarified the standards expected of stenographers—emphasizing the mandatory 20-day period for submitting transcripts and the impropriety of releasing unofficial copies. The ruling also shows that judges who act on litigants' motions in a reasonable manner will not be held liable for misconduct.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Ang Kek Chen was the accused in a criminal case for unjust vexation before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila. After a hearing on March 26, 2004, he paid the court stenographer, Primitiva A. Caliao-Gloria, P200.00 as a down payment for the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), expecting it within a week. Gloria, however, failed to deliver on time, prompting the complainant to file motions calling the matter to the attention of Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit.

The complainant eventually received the TSN on May 13, 2004, followed by a revised version on May 20, 2004. He then pointed out alleged irregularities in both versions, claiming they did not reflect the actual proceedings verbatim. He also accused Judge Sulit of failing to act on his motions, refusing to initiate disciplinary action against other court participants, and releasing orders ahead of their stated dates.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the judge and the stenographer should be held administratively liable—the judge for alleged gross misconduct and the stenographer for delayed and erroneous transcription, and for releasing an unofficial transcript prepared by a trainee.

The Ruling: Judge Exonerated, Stenographer Penalized

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Judge Sulit for lack of merit. The records showed that she issued an Order on April 28, 2004 directing Gloria to transcribe the proceedings within five days, and another Order on June 1, 2004 giving the complainant an opportunity to file a motion for correction if he found inaccuracies. The Court noted that the complainant refused to follow this proper remedy and instead insisted on pursuing the administrative case. Mere imputation of judicial misconduct without sufficient proof, the Court stressed, will never be countenanced.

The Court, however, found Gloria liable for simple neglect of duty. Two acts were particularly significant. First, Gloria allowed her daughter-in-law, a mere trainee, to transcribe her stenographic notes, and then allowed the complainant to obtain a copy of this unofficial transcript despite knowing it was inaccurate. Second, Gloria failed to comply with the 20-day period for submitting transcripts under Administrative Circular No. 24-90. The hearing was on March 26, 2004, so the transcript was due by April 15, 2004—but it was finished only on May 20, 2004, more than a month late.

The 20-Day Rule Is Mandatory

The Court emphasized that the directive in Administrative Circular No. 24-90 is clear: all stenographers must transcribe their notes and attach the transcripts to the case record not later than 20 days from the time the notes were taken. This period applies without distinction as to when the next hearing is scheduled. Gloria's defense that the next hearing was months away did not excuse the delay. Likewise, any extension of the period must be upon the recommendation of the judge and subject to the approval of the Office of the Court Administrator—not something a stenographer can grant on her own.

Practical Takeaways

• Stenographers must strictly observe the 20-day rule for submitting transcripts, regardless of the court's hearing schedule.
• Never release unofficial transcripts. Allowing a litigant to obtain a draft prepared by a trainee, even in good faith, is highly improper and can lead to administrative liability.
• Extensions require proper authority. A stenographer cannot simply agree with a party to extend the transcription deadline; approval must come through the judge and the Office of the Court Administrator.
• Judges who act reasonably on motions are protected. A judge who issues orders addressing a litigant's concerns and provides a proper remedy will not be liable for misconduct, even if the litigant disagrees with the approach.
• First-time offenders may receive leniency. The Court considered Gloria's 30 years of service and clean record in imposing a fine of P5,000.00 instead of suspension.

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