Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50061:am-mtj-06-1649-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:21:50+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. MTJ-06-1649 - Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1605-MTJ - Ang Kek Chen v. Judge Cristina Javalera-Sulit, et al.
ANG KEK CHEN, Complainant, v. JUDGE CRISTINA F. JAVALERA-SULIT and STENOGRAPHER PRIMITIVA A. CALIAO-GLORIA, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, MANILA, Respondents.
Before the Court is a Verified-Complaint dated July 12, 2004,1 an Amended Verified Complaint dated August 5, 20042 and an Erratum dated August 9, 2004,3 filed by Ang Kek Chen (complainant) against Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit (Judge Sulit) and Stenographer Primitiva A. Caliao-Gloria (Gloria) for serious or gross misconduct in connection with the transcription of the stenographic notes (TSN) taken on the proceedings held on March 26, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 367476 for unjust vexation, where herein complainant is the accused.
Complainant's style is indeed difficult. Nonetheless, since he tenaciously refuses to seek the assistance of counsel, and in order not to farther (sic) stretch the long-deserved resolution of this controversy, we focus on the recurrent issues perceivable in complainant's original and amended complaints. These are: against respondent stenographer: (1) erroneous transcription of the proceedings on March 26, 2004; (2) delayed submission of the TSN thereof; (3) coming up with two different/divergent versions of the TSN; against respondent judge: (1) failure to act on complainant's motions; (2) refusal to initiate disciplinary action(s) against the concerned persons; (3) irregularities between the dates of release and of issuance of the Orders dated March 26, 2004 (two) and April 28, 2004.
The charges against respondent judge are not meritorious. The alleged failure to act on complainant's motions is belied by the records. Respondent judge merely inherited the case with several pending incidents. In spite of this, during her first hearing of the case on March 26, 2004, she issued two orders dated March 26, 2004, disposing of two pending motions. Complainant's other motions relate to the alleged irregularities and delay in the transcription of the March 26, 2004 proceeding by respondent stenographer. These matters, despite the usually rumpled, unassisted-by-counsel form in which they were raised, were duly addressed by respondent judge in her Orders dated April 28, and June 1, 2004, respectively.
Consequently, the alleged refusal to initiate disciplinary action relative to the transcription has no basis. In fact, the Order dated April 28, 2004 directed respondent stenographer to transcribe the notes of the proceedings held on March 26, 2004, within five days from receipt of the order. This was followed by the Order dated June 1, 2004 directing stenographer De Jesus to furnish a copy of the requested tape recording to the accused for recopying. Besides, it would have been premature for respondent judge to institute disciplinary measures since the actual errors in the transcription have yet to be established, hence the latter order stating "should the accused finds that the said transcript of stenographic notes is not accurate, he is given time to file a motion for the correction of the same, set it for hearing and with notice to the other counsel."
Finally,the supposed discrepancies in the dates of release and of issuance of certain orders were sufficiently explained. The certification of the Branch Clerk of Court, Gina D. Turiano, dated August 10, 2004, and the affidavit of the Clerk-In-Charge (criminal cases) Mrs. Solita N. Esguerra, explained the circumstances on the mailing of the questioned orders. Their explanation is well taken, considering that two of the concerned orders were in fact issued in open court during the hearing on March 26, 2004.
We go now to the charges against respondent stenographer. The complaint relative to the erroneous transcription is premature. As discussed above, the actual mistakes in the transcription have yet to be established. The Order dated June 1, 2004, giving complainant time "to file a motion for the correction of the same, set it for hearing and with notice to the other counsel" should he find that "the said transcript of stenographic notes is not accurate", stands. Complainant has not moved for such correction despite having with him a copy of the pertinent tape recording. His reliance on his own recollection of certain segments that were supposedly omitted from the TSN cannot be given merit unless the proper procedure for correction of the transcription certified to be correct by the stenographer who prepared it is taken. In the absence of any contrary evidence properly adduced, the certified TSN is presumed to be the true and complete transcription of the proceedings in question and such document is the competent proof of the contents thereof.
The assailed delay in transcribing must likewise fail. There is conflict as to when the TSN was really due. According to complainant, respondent stenographer promised him that it would be available after one week. The latter, however, claims that she requested for at least three weeks to finish the document. Nowhere in the records does it appear that they were able to agree on a definite period. At any rate, it appears that the request of respondent stenographer was justified in light of the long gap before the next hearing.
Complainant filed a pleading dated June 4, 2007 in reply to Judge Sulit's May 15, 2007 motion, questioning how Judge Sulit could have obtained a copy of the Resolution dated August 9, 2006 on August 15, 2006 when the Assistant Clerk of Court of the First Division Edgar Aricheta said that the same could only be released on September 14, 2006. He also said that Judge Sulit is "super malakas" with Justice Marigomen as manifested by Justice Marigomen's June 23, 2005 Order which found the complaint difficult to understand and confusing. Complainant then reiterated his charges against Judge Sulit.
Judge Sulit filed her Comment on the said pleading, dated June 14, 2007, stating that: the imputation that she is "super malakas" with Justice Marigomen is not true, as she does not personally know the latter. She also maintained that she received the Resolution of the Court dated August 9, 2006 on September 15, 2006, personally and later by registered mail. She then reiterated her prayer to have the case resolved in order to end the tirade of complainant against her.
Complainant filed a Rejoinder to Judge Sulit's Comment dated June 25, 2007, asking why Judge Sulit was personally served a copy of the August 9, 2006 Order; he also pointed out that the manifestations of Judge Sulit and Gloria submitting the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed are identical, manifesting Judge Sulit's lack of impartiality and, thus, her failure to file an administrative case against Gloria; the manifestations of Judge Sulit and Gloria also stated that they received a copy of the August 9, 2006 Order of the Court on August 15, 2006, when the same was still under process and could only be released on September 14, 2006.
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of OCA as to Judge Sulit; but with modifications as to the liability of Gloria.
As correctly found by the OCA, the charges against Judge Sulit are not meritorious and should therefore be dismissed.
Complainant's allegation that Judge Sulit did not act on his motions asking for the transcription of the proceedings on March 26, 2004 is belied by the Order dated April 28, 2004 issued by Judge Sulit explicitly directing Gloria to transcribe the said proceedings within five days from receipt of the Order.22 And even though she merely inherited the criminal case where the herein complainant is the accused, she immediately dispensed with the pending incidents therein when she presided over the hearing of the case on March 26, 2004.23 Judge Sulit also issued an Order on June 1, 2004 informing complainant that should he find the TSN prepared by Gloria to be inaccurate, he is given time to file a motion for the correction of the same, and set the same for hearing with notice to the other counsel.24 Complainant however refuses to abide by the said Order and instead insists on pursuing the present administrative case where he is asking Judge Sulit to order Gloria to faithfully transcribe the March 26, 2004 hearing, and the OCA to designate an expert stenographer to check whether Gloria competently performed her job. Judge Sulit's actions on this matter cannot be considered as gross misconduct, which is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.25 Judge Sulit appropriately gave complainant an adequate venue to correct whatever inaccuracies he may have found in the transcription of Gloria, through a hearing with notice to the other party.
Complainant's claim that Judge Sulit failed to impose disciplinary action against Fiscal Ramos and Atty. Calasan is also without merit, as records show that complainant himself asked for time to file a responsive pleading; thus, it was not yet due for resolution.26 In any event, the power to impose or initiate disciplinary action against parties rests upon the sound discretion of the judge, who in the discharge of her duties may exercise the same only upon sufficient grounds.
The Court notes that Judge Sulit has served the government in various capacities for 18 years and has never been previously charged administratively or criminally. She was even nominated to the Judicial Excellence Awards for 2006. Her chance of being chosen however was thwarted by the present administrative case.30 Complainant on the other hand has been shown to have a propensity to file actions against judges and parties whenever the actions of the latter are not to his liking.
The Court agrees that Gloria should be disciplined. She allowed her daughter-in-law, who was a mere trainee, to transcribe her notes. There is no showing that the presence of the trainee was with the knowledge or approval of the judge. She also allowed complainant to get a copy of an unofficial TSN with all its defects and inaccuracies. When Gloria later issued a revised version, this naturally produced in the mind of herein complainant the impression that certain irregularities attended the TSN and eventually resulted in the delay in the resolution of the criminal case. Regardless of the insistence of the complainant, it was highly improper for Gloria to have allowed him to prevail upon her and get a copy of the TSN that was prepared by a mere trainee.
The Court also notes that Gloria failed to comply with paragraph 2(a) of Administrative Circular No. 24-90, which requires all stenographers to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than 20 days from the time the notes were taken.
In this case, the hearing took place on March 26, 2004, thus, she had until April 15, 2004 to finish the TSN. She was able to finish the same, however, only on May 20, 2004 which was more than a month overdue. Her defense that the next setting of the complainant's case was not for another few months does not exculpate her from liability, as the directive of the Administrative Circular is clear that TSNs should be finished within 20 days from the time they were taken, without distinction as to when the next setting for the case shall be held. The extension she asked from complainant also has no bearing, since any extension of the period to finish the TSN should be upon the recommendation of the judge and subject to the approval of the OCA.
WHEREFORE, the charges against Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Stenographer Primitiva A. Caliao-Gloria is FINED Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and WARNED to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties, as a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
8 Id. at 15-16; 309-310.
14 Id. at 719, 729-731.
18 Id. at 749, 752.
19 See Resolution dated April 23, 2007.
21 See Humble Motion for Early Resolution filed by Judge Sulit, dated May 15, 2007.
22 Annex "4", rollo, p. 401.
23 See Orders dated March 26, 2004, Annexes "1", "2" & "3", id. at 398-400.
24 Annex "5", id. at 402.
25 Almojuela, Jr. v. Ringor, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1521, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 261, 267.
26 Rollo, p. 397; see also Order dated April 28, 2004, Annex "4"; id. at 401 and Annex "9", id. at 412-415.
27 Annex "7", id. at 404.
28 Annex "8-B", id. at 407.
29 Mataga v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488, October 13, 2004, 440 SCRA 217, 221.
30 See Humble Motion for Early Resolution dated May 15, 2007 filed by Judge Sulit; letter of Christopher O. Lock as Chairman of the OCA Nominations Committee dated May 30, 2006 addressed to Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and the letter of Ma. Luisa Laurea, Executive Director of the Society for Judicial Excellence dated May 31, 2006 addressed to Judge Sulit.
31 Mataga v. Rosete, supra note 29, at 221-222.
32 Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, A.M. No. P-06-2269, December 20, 2006; Alcover, Sr. v. Bacatan, A.M. No. P-05-2043, December 7, 2005, 476 SCRA 607, 614.
33 Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, id.
34 See generally, Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, id.; Racasa v. Collado-Calizo, 430 Phil. 775, 783 (2002).
35 Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, supra note 32.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.