A.M. No. P-05-2043 - SPO2 JONATHAN M. ALCOVER SR., COMPLAINANT, VS. EDGARDO Y. BACATAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 24, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY.

Ruling

Accordingly, it recommended that respondent be held administratively liable for simple neglect of duty, and that he be "suspended from office for two (2) months without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely." [6] As for the allegation that respondent had altered transcripts of the witness' testimony, the OCA found no supporting proof in the records. [7] The Court's Ruling We agree with the OCA and adopt its recommendation. Administrative Liability of Respondent The conduct of every person connected with the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. [8] A public office is a public trust. [9] Public officers, who are accountable at all times to the people [10] -- most especially to court litigants -- must perform their duties and responsibilities with utmost efficiency and competence. Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which became effective on August 1, 1990, after its promulgation by this Court on July 12, 1990, provides: "2. (a) All stenographers are required to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken. The attaching may be done by putting all said transcripts in a separate folder or envelope, which will then be joined to the record of the case." In the present case, the testimony of Witness Paras in Criminal Case No. CBU-55699 was given on September 18, 2001. Yet, respondent admittedly finished transcribing the notes, only sometime in July 2004. Hence, the latter incurred an intolerable delay of two (2) years and nine (9) months in transcribing the stenographic notes, in plain violation of Administrative Circular No. 24-90. In justifying the delay, respondent cites his heavy work load and the need to transcribe the notes in several other cases as well. His heavy work load is, however, not an adequate excuse for him to be remiss in performing his duties as a public servant. Otherwise, every government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty would resort to the same convenient excuse to evade punishment, to the great prejudice of public service. [11] Further contributing to the delay, respondent contends, was the failure of complainant or of the latter's representative to get copies of the transcripts during the trial. Allegedly, it was only after the conviction of complainant that he suddenly became interested in securing the transcripts; consequently, respondent was left with a shorter time to prepare them. [12] The excuse offered by respondent in his attempt to be exonerated from administrative liability is not adequate. Notably, he has not offered any reason why he allowed more than two years to pass before performing his duty. Undeniably, he failed to transcribe the stenographic notes within twenty days from the time they had been taken. Administrative Circular No. 24-90