ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. P-02-1589.� January 17, 2005]

CANDAZA vs. VALENCIA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2005 .

Adm. Matter No. P-02-1589 (Ildefonso Candaza, et al. vs. Emma D. Valencia, Court Stenographer II, MTCC, Branch 1, Cebu City.)

For consideration is the Report of Investigation and Recommendation dated 12 March 2004 on the instant administrative matter submitted by First Vice-Executive Judge Isaias P. Dicdican, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, in compliance with the resolution dated 28 May 2002.

In a Complaint dated 27 February 2001, complainants Ildefonso Candaza, Hipolito Jacaban, Jr., Leonardo Abapo, Diosdado Iway, Inocentes Sanchez, Apolonio Ebarita, Martin Calisang and Sancho Ramos charged respondent Emma D. Valencia and Eufrocina B. Natinga, both Court Stenographers II, of the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 1 (MTCC-Br. 1), with Violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 24-90 directing court stenographers to submit transcripts within twenty (20) days from the taking of stenographic notes, relative to Election Protest Cases No. 97-184, entitled "Hipolito Jacaban, et al. v. Samuel Villarba, et al.," and No. 97-185, entitled "Inocentes Sanchez, et al. v. Francisco R. Pintor, Jr."

Complainants were the protestants in the two election protests. On 11 September 2000, the revision and recounting of the ballots in the two cases took place in MTCC-Br. 1 with respondent Valencia and Eufrocina B. Natinga as the stenographers on duty. Complainants allege that the revision and recounting of ballots ended on 20 December 2000 but respondent Valencia and Eufrocina B. Natinga failed to transcribe the stenographic notes despite numerous follow-ups. Complainants needed the stenographic notes for the filing of criminal and administrative cases against the chairpersons of the Boards Election Tellers for alleged violations of the Omnibus Election Code. Complainants were prompted to file on 5 February 2001 an Urgent Motion to Transcribe Stenographic Notes, which the trial court granted on 6 February 2001. The stenographers failed to comply with the order. The trial court issued another order dated 21 May 2001 reiterating the directive. A motion to cite respondent Valencia in contempt was also filed by complainants but this the trial court dismissed in an order dated 24 August 2001 in view of respondent's compliance.

The Court required respondent Valencia and Eufrocina B. Natinga to file their respective comments on the complaint. Respondent Valencia denied the complainants' allegations. She did her best to fulfill her duties and responsibilities. She reasoned in her defense that it was physically impossible for her to transcribe the stenographic notes in the soonest time possible since there were so many assigned cases assigned to MTCC-Br. 1 and she was the only stenographer on duty. The Court had about 4,000 cases then pending and there were about fifteen (15) cases calendared everyday from Monday to Friday. She submitted in evidence the order of the court dismissing the contempt charge against her and she went on to declare that she was able to submit in August 2001 all the transcripts required of her in the two election protests.

Eufrocina B. Natinga also submitted her Comment where she admitted that there had been a delay in transcribing the stenographic notes but it was not because of incompetence or deliberate failure on her part but because of the physical impossibility of the task demanded of her. Still, she reported that she had already finished transcribing the required stenographic notes.

In a Resolution dated 28 May 2002, the Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Eufrocinia B. Natinga and referred the administrative complaint against respondent Valencia to First Vice-Executive Judge Isaias P. Dicdican, RTC, Cebu City for investigation, report and recommendation.

Judge Dicdican, in his sealed Report, has come out with the finding that respondent Valencia is not liable of the charges against her. She was unable to transcribe the stenographic notes within the time frame fixed by complainants because she had so many things to attend to, such as attending to daily trials and hearings scheduled by the MTCC-Br. 1 and typing drafts of orders and decisions dictated to her by the judge of said court. From 26 January 2001 to 21 May 2001, she seemed to be the only stenographer on duty, and thus it was physically impossible for her to accomplish the transcription of the stenographic notes within the time requested by complainants. There is also no showing that she favored the protestees in the election protest cases. Neither is it shown that respondent committed unprofessional conduct and acts. Hence, Judge Dicdican recommends that the case against respondent be dismissed with a reminder that she be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Emma D. Valencia, Court Stenographer II, MTCC, Br. 1, Cebu City, is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE