THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. OCA No. P-02-1570. April 3, 2002]
ATTY. SAMSON DAJAO, complainant, vs. FRANKLIN LLUCH, Process Server, RTC, Branch 4, Iligan City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
In an undated
“Memorandum-Complaint” addressed to Executive Judge Mamindiara P. Mangotara of
the Regional Trial Court at Iligan City, Temolito B. Nalla, through his
counsel, Atty. Samson N. Dajao, charged Franklin Lluch, process server of the
same court, with dereliction of duty in connection with Civil Case No. 4510.[1] Complainant
alleged that on March 9, 1999, this case was set for hearing but was cancelled
because respondent Lluch forgot to serve the notice to the parties. Respondent’s conduct caused prejudice to the
complainant considering that he had to take a leave of absence from his work at
the National Steel Corporation. He
stressed that “lazy and incompetent employee has no place in this sacred
activity called dispensation of justice where utmost honesty, dedication,
integrity, industry and sometimes personal sacrifices are required. He should find employment somewhere else.”[2]
Respondent did not deny
that he failed to serve the Notices of Pre-Trial to all the parties in Civil
Case No. 4510. In his Explanation
dated March 12, 1999, he stated:
“That his failure was not intentional nor do he failed to record the said notice. All notices for service were placed in one envelope. However, because of the voluminous notices he has since regular Sheriff of this Court was on leave and all notices and summons were assigned to him, he mistakenly placed the above-mentioned Pre-Trial Notice at the middle of a Notice (between the original and duplicate) that is scheduled for service the following week.
“That I have already
conferred this matter with Atty. Samson Dajao of the situation and that he
accepted my explanation. In fact, he
told me to intercept the letter mailed to the Supreme Court but unfortunately,
the letter was already mailed when we arrived at the Iligan City Post Office.”[3]
Upon the directive of the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which was furnished a copy of the said
“Memorandum-Complaint,” Executive Judge Mangotara conducted an investigation.
His findings and recommendation are as follows:
“2. That Franklin Lluch, Process Server of RTC Branch 4 explained to the undersigned that his failure to give notice to the parties in the pre-trial conference on March 9, 1999 is not intentional. That because of the voluminous notices which was placed in one envelope due to the leave of absence of the Deputy Sheriff Mr. Anacleto, he mistakenly placed the pre-trial notice at the middle of a notice (between the original and duplicate);
“3. That he, the Process Server had conferred this matter with Atty. Samson Dajao of the circumstances and Atty. Dajao had accepted it but unfortunately said letter was already mailed to the Supreme Court. In fact, immediately after the hearing on March 9, 1999, the acting Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 4 admonished Franklin Lluch, the Process Server, not to repeat his short-coming otherwise he will be recommended for fine or suspension from the service;
“From the foregoing explanation of Process Server Franklin Lluch, the Court is of the view that prejudice is wanting. The clients of Atty. Dajao are residents of Iligan City. In fact, the record shows that the pre-trial was reset to March 16, 1999, and the same was terminated on the same date, and that the plaintiff has already presented three (3) witnesses.
“In the light of the foregoing, the undersigned recommends for
reprimand only to the effect that repetition of the same, a more severe penalty
shall be imposed.”[4]
The OCA considered the
above findings and recommendation “satisfactory” and made the same
recommendation to this Court.
After a close review of
the records, we are convinced that respondent was negligent in the performance
of his duties as a process server. He
deserves a more severe penalty.
As mentioned earlier,
Executive Judge Mangotara found that no prejudice was caused to the parties
since “the pre-trial was reset to March 16, 1999, and the same was terminated
on the same date, and that the plaintiff (now complainant) has already
presented three (3) witnesses.” At first glance, the damage to the parties is
trivial. In fact, complainant was on
leave from work for only one day and that not one of the defendants
complained. However, respondent’s
neglect of duty goes beyond the interest of the parties in Civil Case No.
4510. It is a concern of this
Court. We find his actuation inimical
to the speedy dispensation of justice.
Considering the heavy backlog of cases in the trial courts, negligence
of this kind, if lightly taken, will definitely hinder their speedy
disposition.
The duty of a process
server is vital to the machinery of the justice system. His primary duty is “to serve court notices”[5] which precisely requires utmost care on his part by
seeing to it that all notices assigned to him are duly served upon the
parties. Thus, respondent should have
carefully examined each of the “voluminous notices” assigned to him, scanning
and reading every page to ensure that every notice to the party concerned will
be served properly. Here, respondent
failed to exercise that degree of diligence required by his office. It bears reiterating what we said in Musni
vs. Morales,[6] that “the conduct required of court personnel, from
the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and
circumscribed with heavy burden of responsibility.” In government service, both the highest and lowest positions are
impressed with public interest[7] and are, by solemn mandate of the Constitution,
public trusts.[8] Faithful adherence to this public trust character of
a public office is strictly demanded from those involved in the administration
of justice because their task is a “sacred one.”[9] Furthermore, this Court condemns and would never
countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of those involved in the
administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability
and would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the
judiciary.[10]
Considering the
circumstances surrounding this case, we find respondent liable for simple
neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty
is the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a task expected of
him, signifying “disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or
indifference.”[11] Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, simple neglect of duty,
if committed for the first time, as in this case, is punishable by suspension
of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.
WHEREFORE, respondent Franklin Lluch is hereby FINED
in the sum of P2,000.00 with a warning that a repetition of similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman),
Panganiban, and
Carpio, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official leave.
[1] Entitled “Temolito
B. Nalla vs. NSC Retirees Service Cooperative, Inc., et al.”
[2] Rollo, p. 7.
[3] Ibid., p. 9.
[4] Ibid., pp.
2-3.
[5] The responsibilities of a process server are spelled
out under the Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 33, thus:
“The Process Server serves Court processes such as
subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, summonses, Court orders and notices;
prepares and submits returns of service of processes, monitors messages and/or
delivers Court mail matters; keeps in custody and maintains a record book of
all mail matters received and dispatched by the Court; and performs such other
duties as may be assigned by the Presiding Judge/Clerk of Court.”
[6] 315 SCRA 85 (1999);
See also Samonte vs. Gatdula, 303 SCRA 756 (1999); Neeland vs.
Villanueva, 317 SCRA 652 (1999).
[7] Bandong vs.
Ching, 261 SCRA 10 (1996).
[8] Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
provides:
“Section 1. Public Office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all
times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives.”
[9] Almario vs.
Resus, 318 SCRA 742 (1999).
[10] Bandong vs.
Ching, supra; Biag vs. Gubatanga, 318 SCRA 753 (1999), citing Re:
Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, 242 SCRA 432 (1995).
[11] Philippine
Retirement Authority vs. Thelma Rupa, G. R. No. 140519, August 21, 2001.