June 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > June 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-01-1509 [Formerly A.M. No. 01-8-486-RTC] : June 13, 2007] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. NELIA A. VILLANUEVA, FORMER COURT STENOGRAPHER, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MANDALUYONG CITY :
[A.M. No. P-01-1509 [Formerly A.M. No. 01-8-486-RTC] : June 13, 2007]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. NELIA A. VILLANUEVA, FORMER COURT STENOGRAPHER, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MANDALUYONG CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 13 JUNE 2007
A.M. No. P-01-1509 [Formerly A.M. No. 01-8-486-RTC] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Nelia A. Villanueva, former Court Stenographer, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City)
On January 24, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a copy of the Memorandum[1] dated January 18, 2001 of Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 59, Mandaluyong City, requiring former Court Stenographer Nelia A. Villanueva to apprise the court about the status of the untranscribed notes in four criminal cases despite the lapse of more than four years.
The untranscribed stenographic notes involved the following cases:[2]
In a Memorandum[3] dated February 1, 2001, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo directed respondent to explain why no disciplinary sanctions should be imposed upon her for her failure to transcribe the said notes and to submit proof of compliance with the directive of Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano.
Paragraph 2(a) of Administrative Circular No. 224-90 dated July 12, 1990 states:
A verification of the records of the Administrative Services Office (OCA), showed that respondent tendered her resignation[5] as Court Stenographer of the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, effective December 16, 2000. On February 21, 2001, OCA accepted respondent's resignation.
Upon OCA's request, the Branch Clerk of Court of the MeTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 59 issued a certification[6] dated July 31, 2001 stating that respondent failed to submit the transcript of stenographic notes in the aforementioned cases.
In a Resolution dated September 12, 2001, the Court resolved, among others, to note the letter-explanation of respondent dated March 15, 2001 and the certification dated July 31, 2001, to docket the case as a regular administrative matter and to require respondent to manifest within ten days from notice if she was willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.
Respondent was furnished with a copy of the Resolution dated September 12, 2001 only in June 2004, after her residential address was ascertained by the Court.
In an undated Manifestation, which was received by the Court on July 26, 2004, respondent stated that several days after she submitted her letter-explanation dated March 15, 2001 to the Court, she submitted the transcript of stenographic notes in Crim. Case No. 57453, but failed to have it received by the court concerned. As regards the other cases, she closely coordinated with the court stenographers of Branch 59 in the transcription of the stenographic notes, but she likewise failed to communicate the matter to Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano, the Branch Clerk of Court or the Court Administrator.
Respondent further stated that sometime in June 2004, she received a copy of the Resolution dated September 12, 2001 directing her "to manifest if she is willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed." She immediately went to the MeTC, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City and inquired about the status of the cases complained of. She was informed that all cases had been terminated/dismissed.
Respondent pointed out that Crim. Case Nos. [56943] and [57453] were decided on July 31, 1998 and January 5, 2001, respectively, prior to the filing of the Memorandum Complaint on January 18, 2001 by MeTC Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano. Moreover, Crim. Case Nos. 57239 and [56587] were dismissed on February 5, 2001 and April 15, 2003, respectively. She attached to her Manifestation a certified true copy of the Docket Book, Entry of Judgment of Branch 59 of Crim. Case Nos. 57453, 56943 and 57239, and a certified true copy of the Decision in Crim. Case No. 56587.
Respondent submitted that under the circumstances, the subject transcript of stenographic notes was no longer necessary. She admitted that she had been remiss in her obligation to submit the same on time, but prayed for compassion and that the Court dismiss the complaint against her.
Is former Court Stenographer Villanueva administratively liable for her failure to transcribe the subject stenographic notes within the reglementary period?
The Court rules in the negative.
The Memorandum dated January 18, 2001 of MeTC Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano requiring respondent to apprise the court about the status of the untranscribed stenographic notes despite the lapse of more than four years may be considered as a complaint filed against respondent.
The Court notes that Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano accepted respondent's resignation as Court Stenographer III in the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 effective December 16, 2000. While the complaint was filed against respondent on January 18, 2001.
Hence, it is clear that the Court already lost its jurisdiction over respondent at the time the complaint was filed against her. An administrative proceeding is predicated on the holding of an office or position in the Government.[7] The rule that the resignation or retirement of a public official or employee renders the administrative case moot and academic applies in this case.
WHEREFORE, the administrative case against former Court Stenographer Nelia A. Villanueva is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. P-01-1509 [Formerly A.M. No. 01-8-486-RTC] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Nelia A. Villanueva, former Court Stenographer, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City)
On January 24, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a copy of the Memorandum[1] dated January 18, 2001 of Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 59, Mandaluyong City, requiring former Court Stenographer Nelia A. Villanueva to apprise the court about the status of the untranscribed notes in four criminal cases despite the lapse of more than four years.
The untranscribed stenographic notes involved the following cases:[2]
| Crim. Case No. | Court Session | Witness presented |
| | | |
| 57453 | February 26,1996 June 24, 1996 | Edgardo Tiu Edgardo Tiu |
| 56587 | October 21, 1996 March 11, 1997 | Franklin Cabasaan PO1 Victor Santos |
| 57239 | September 23, 1996 October 14, 1996 | Rodolfo Vicencio Rodolfo Vicencio |
| 56943 | December 4, 1995 November 18, 1996 | Gloria Ignacio Joselito De Guia |
In a Memorandum[3] dated February 1, 2001, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo directed respondent to explain why no disciplinary sanctions should be imposed upon her for her failure to transcribe the said notes and to submit proof of compliance with the directive of Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano.
Paragraph 2(a) of Administrative Circular No. 224-90 dated July 12, 1990 states:
All stenographers are required to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the records 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 a letter[4] dated March 15, 2001, respondent explained that after her transfer from the MeTC, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 214, Mandaluyong City as Court Stenographer, she was the only one assisting the court in its sessions for more than eight months. Due to the heavy workload in Branch 214, she was unable to transcribe the subject stenographic notes in Branch 59. She apologized for failing to transcribe the stenographic notes and promised to do so by the end of March 2001.
A verification of the records of the Administrative Services Office (OCA), showed that respondent tendered her resignation[5] as Court Stenographer of the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, effective December 16, 2000. On February 21, 2001, OCA accepted respondent's resignation.
Upon OCA's request, the Branch Clerk of Court of the MeTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 59 issued a certification[6] dated July 31, 2001 stating that respondent failed to submit the transcript of stenographic notes in the aforementioned cases.
In a Resolution dated September 12, 2001, the Court resolved, among others, to note the letter-explanation of respondent dated March 15, 2001 and the certification dated July 31, 2001, to docket the case as a regular administrative matter and to require respondent to manifest within ten days from notice if she was willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.
Respondent was furnished with a copy of the Resolution dated September 12, 2001 only in June 2004, after her residential address was ascertained by the Court.
In an undated Manifestation, which was received by the Court on July 26, 2004, respondent stated that several days after she submitted her letter-explanation dated March 15, 2001 to the Court, she submitted the transcript of stenographic notes in Crim. Case No. 57453, but failed to have it received by the court concerned. As regards the other cases, she closely coordinated with the court stenographers of Branch 59 in the transcription of the stenographic notes, but she likewise failed to communicate the matter to Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano, the Branch Clerk of Court or the Court Administrator.
Respondent further stated that sometime in June 2004, she received a copy of the Resolution dated September 12, 2001 directing her "to manifest if she is willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed." She immediately went to the MeTC, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City and inquired about the status of the cases complained of. She was informed that all cases had been terminated/dismissed.
Respondent pointed out that Crim. Case Nos. [56943] and [57453] were decided on July 31, 1998 and January 5, 2001, respectively, prior to the filing of the Memorandum Complaint on January 18, 2001 by MeTC Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano. Moreover, Crim. Case Nos. 57239 and [56587] were dismissed on February 5, 2001 and April 15, 2003, respectively. She attached to her Manifestation a certified true copy of the Docket Book, Entry of Judgment of Branch 59 of Crim. Case Nos. 57453, 56943 and 57239, and a certified true copy of the Decision in Crim. Case No. 56587.
Respondent submitted that under the circumstances, the subject transcript of stenographic notes was no longer necessary. She admitted that she had been remiss in her obligation to submit the same on time, but prayed for compassion and that the Court dismiss the complaint against her.
Is former Court Stenographer Villanueva administratively liable for her failure to transcribe the subject stenographic notes within the reglementary period?
The Court rules in the negative.
The Memorandum dated January 18, 2001 of MeTC Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano requiring respondent to apprise the court about the status of the untranscribed stenographic notes despite the lapse of more than four years may be considered as a complaint filed against respondent.
The Court notes that Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano accepted respondent's resignation as Court Stenographer III in the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 effective December 16, 2000. While the complaint was filed against respondent on January 18, 2001.
Hence, it is clear that the Court already lost its jurisdiction over respondent at the time the complaint was filed against her. An administrative proceeding is predicated on the holding of an office or position in the Government.[7] The rule that the resignation or retirement of a public official or employee renders the administrative case moot and academic applies in this case.
WHEREFORE, the administrative case against former Court Stenographer Nelia A. Villanueva is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 11.
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id. at 10.
[4] Id. at 9.
[5] Id. at 5.
[6] Id. at 6.
[7] Diamalon v. Quintillan, Admin. Case No. 116, August 29, SCRA 247, 350.
