A.M. No. P-17-3709 (Formerly OCA IPI No.13-4058-P) - JUDGE CELSO O. BAGUIO, COMPLAINANT, V. JOCELYN P. LACUNA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, GAPAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA.

Ruling

Accordingly, she prayed that the complaint be dismissed or if found guilty, that her penalty be mitigated. [9] On September 11, 2015, the OCA recommended that the administrative complaint be referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija for investigation, report and recommendation. [10] In a Report and Recommendation [11] dated March 2, 2017, Executive Judge Ana Marie C. Joson-Viterbo recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay, having been found guilty only of simple neglect of duty. [12] The Executive Judge noted that respondent admittedly failed to timely transcribe half of her stenographic notes within the period prescribed prior to January 25, 2013 (the date of the incident complained of) but nonetheless completed the same before the next scheduled hearing of the cases, and that the primary cause for the delay was her slow performance despite her noticeable hard work. Since the investigation showed that respondent has significantly improved, and in fact, exerted efforts to fulfill her duties within the prescribed time, the Executive Judge found respondent not to have acted in bad faith and therefore guilty of simple neglect of duty only. Accordingly, the Executive Judge recommended the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay after considering her previous infraction for a similar offense, [13] the twenty-one (21) years of public service, and complainant's admission that her working habits had greatly improved. [14] The Issue Before the Court The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. The Court's Ruling The Court finds the Executive Judge's recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case and thus, adopts and approves the same except as to the imposable penalty. The duties of a Stenographer are clearly embodied under Section 17, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, to wit: SEC. 17. Stenographer . - It shall be the duty of the stenographer who has attended a session of a court either in the morning or in the afternoon, to deliver to the clerk of court, immediately at the close of such morning or afternoon session, all the notes he has taken, to be attached to the record of the case ; and it shall likewise be the duty of the clerk to demand that the stenographer comply with said duty. The clerk of court shall stamp the date on which such notes are received by him. When such notes are transcribed the transcript shall be delivered to the clerk, duly initialed on each page thereof, to be attached to the record of the case. (Emphasis supplied) xxxx Under the afore-cited provision, stenographers are enjoined to immediately deliver to the clerk of court all the notes taken during the session of the court, which are to be attached to the record of the case. In this regard, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 24-90 [15] requires stenographers to transcribe their notes