FIRST DIVISION
ROMMEL
N. MACASPAC, A.M. No. P-05-2072
Complainant, (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1989-P)
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
AZCUNA, and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
RICARDO
C.
Server,
Regional Trial Court,
Branch
3,
Respondent. Promulgated:
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This administrative
case arose from the Complaint[1]
filed on August 20, 2004 with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging
respondent, in his capacity as Process Server of Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan, with Serious Neglect of Duty relative to
Criminal Case Nos. 9038 and 9039 entitled “People
of the Philippines v. Nova A. Catapang” for violation of Republic Act No.
9165 (otherwise known as
the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”).
Complainant, who introduced himself
as a Police Officer (PO) I assigned at the District Civil Disturbance Management
Group (DCDMG) located at Western Police District (WPD) Headquarters, United
Nations Avenue, Ermita, Manila, alleged: that he was previously assigned at PRO
3 Police Station in Orani, Bataan from August 30, 2002 to December 19, 2003; that
on January 14, 2003, he apprehended Nova Catapang for violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; that
an Information was filed, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 9038 and 9039, and
raffled to Balanga City RTC Br. 3; that knowing that he was bound to testify as
the arresting officer, he waited for the notice of hearing to be sent but none
came until his actual reassignment on December 19, 2003; that on July 22, 2004,
he was shocked and surprised when it came to his knowledge that the criminal
cases were dismissed by the court per Order dated June 30, 2004[2]
stating, among others, that “the prosecution
of these cases went caput (sic) simply because of the failure of the purported
arresting officer to appear at the scheduled hearings”; that upon inquiry
with RTC Br. 3, he was informed by a court personnel that respondent made a
report on the return of the notice of hearing at the back page of the subpoena
dated October 22, 2003 certifying that he has not served a copy of the subpoena
to complainant on November 18, 2003 because “the
said PO1 Rommel Macaspac is now [assigned] at WPD Station 2[,] Tondo, Manila
according to SPO3 Antonio Capuli of the PNP, Orani, Bataan”; that respondent
perjured in his report because complainant was at the time not assigned or
transferred to another station, and in fact the latter was the desk officer-on-duty
from November 17 to 19, 2003, in that same station where the subpoena was allegedly
served; that the act of respondent, in making a report without further inquiry
as to the truth thereof, is a grave neglect of his duties as a process server
because it is detrimental to the prosecution of the case and the government’s
campaign against illegal drugs; and that the act of respondent against
complainant’s case is not an isolated incident as complainant found out through
inquiries that most of the cases handled by the municipal police officers of
Orani, Bataan were dismissed because of respondent’s reports that a subpoena
was served to a particular police officer but in truth and in fact it was never
served or that respondent never tried to serve it by coming to the police station. Complainant prayed that a proper
investigation of the matter be conducted before further damage would be caused
by respondent.
In its
Indorsement dated
Respondent
countered that he should not be faulted for making a report that is candid and
truthful. To him, he simply made a statement
of fact, no more and no less. He asserted that the situation would have been
different had complainant questioned the existence of a certain SPO3 Capuli,
which he did not. Respondent stated that he could not have gone beyond the
advice of SPO3 Capuli for the same was accorded truth only after complainant
was found unavailable; that it was complainant who was first sought by
respondent and it was only after he was nowhere to be found that respondent
started to inquire from his colleagues. As
to complainant’s allegation that respondent was also negligent in other cases, respondent
argued that such accusation deserves scant regard for want of specific evidence
that would link him to the supposed acts.
In his
Reply filed on
On
It is clear from the records of the instant
complaint that there was indeed an unjustified failure to serve the subpoena
dated
Respondent’s explanation that he was not able
to serve the said subpoena as per advice of SPO3 Capuli is unmeritorious. As a
Process Server imbued with a sense of dedication to duty he should have
ascertained the veracity of the information given to him that complainant has
been reassigned elsewhere. His alleged attempt to serve the subpoena was
downright perfunctory.
By promptly acting the way he did without
further verifying the false information given to him the respondent was guilty
of neglect of duty which caused the dismissal of Criminal [Cases] Nos. 9038 and
9039 of the RTC, Branch 3,
The OCA
recommended that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter and that respondent, conformably with the ruling in Musni v. Morales,[9]
be fined in the amount of P3,000, with a warning that a repetition of
the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Per
resolution dated
After
perusing over the records of the case, this Court agrees with the OCA findings,
except as to its recommended penalty.
As opposed
to the self-serving and uncorroborated declaration of respondent, documentary
evidence substantiates the claim that on November 18, 2003, the day respondent
purportedly tried to serve a copy of the subpoena, complainant was actually
still assigned as the desk officer at the PRO 3 Police Station in Orani, Bataan. It can, therefore, be deduced that either
respondent deliberately made a false report as he, in fact, did not actually go
to the police station or that he tried to serve the subpoena but no longer
pursued it upon relying on the representation of SPO3 Capuli. Since fraud or malice cannot be ascribed in
the absence of clear and convincing evidence to prove the same, the Court is inclined
to regard the latter scenario as logical especially since complainant himself failed
to disprove the identity of SPO3 Capuli or present his testimony to belie
respondent’s allegation of having talked to him.
Nevertheless,
respondent cannot escape administrative liability, considering that he did not
diligently exert his best effort to ascertain the true whereabouts of
complainant. Evidently, he conveniently depended
on just a lone informant, who later on was not even willing to exculpate him
from the present charges, instead of endeavoring to double check the data he obtained
with the view in mind that justice to the cause of the People would be served.
Notably, under
Section 6, Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Court, service of a subpoena
shall be made in the same manner as personal or substituted service of summons.
Pertinent sections of Rule 14, in effect, state:
Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. – Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
Sec.
7. Substituted service. – If, for
justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving
copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable
age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.
Personal service and substituted service
are the two modes of serving a subpoena. In this case, after respondent’s frustrated
attempt to personally serve complainant a copy of the subpoena he acted no further. This he cannot deny since the certification
itself only reflected: “I have this 18th
day of November 2003 not served of (sic) witness subpoena upon PO1 Rommel
Macaspac on the ground that the said PO1 Rommel Macaspac is now [assigned] at
WPD Station 2[,] Tondo, Manila according to SPO3 Antonio Capuli of the PNP,
Orani, Bataan.”[10]
He did not attest in his report or aver
in his Comment that, upon learning that personal service is not possible, he
served the subpoena by leaving a copy thereof to some responsible person at
complainant’s dwelling place in Orani,
Respondent’s
lackadaisical deportment only shows his inefficiency and incompetence to
perform the functions of his office. As
public servants, process servers like respondent must be constantly aware that they
are bound by virtue of their office to exercise the prudence, caution and
attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs.[11] They should be fully cognizant of the nature
and responsibilities of their tasks and their impact in giving flesh to the
constitutional rights of the litigants to due process and speedy disposition of
cases.[12]
In falling short of his mandate,
respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which signifies the failure of
an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and a disregard of a
duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[13]
The term does not necessarily include willful neglect or intentional official
wrongdoing.[14] The OCA’s recommended penalty of a fine in the
amount of P3,000, however, does not correspond to
the range of penalties provided for under Section 52 (B) (1), Rule IV of the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[15]
which took effect four days after the promulgation of the Musni case. Under the prevailing
Rules, simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense which
carries the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for
the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Considering the adverse effect of respondent’s
negligence to the Republic’s efforts to curb the proliferation of illegal drugs,
he should be suspended for three months without pay.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and is
SUSPENDED for three (3) months without
pay, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
Let a copy of this decision be attached
to the personnel records of respondent in the Office of Administrative
Services, Office of the Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] 373 Phil. 703 (1999).
[10] Rollo, p. 12.
[11] Exec.
Judge Ulat-Marrero v. Torio, Jr., 461 Phil. 654, 661 (2003), as cited in Rodrigo-Ebron v. Adolfo, A.M. No.
P-06-2231,
[12] Judge
Sardillo v. Baloloy, A.M. No. P-06-2192,
[13] Rodrigo-Ebron
v. Adolfo, supra at 293; Reyes v.
Pablico, supra at 156; Laguio, Jr. v.
Amante-Casicas, id; Maxino v.
Fabugais, supra at 86; Exec. Judge
Ulat-Marrero v. Torio, Jr., supra at 660; Judge Cañete v. Manlosa, 459 Phil. 224, 230 (2003); and Atty. Dajao v. Lluch, 429 Phil. 620, 626
(2002).
[14] Exec.
Judge Ulat-Marrero v. Torio, Jr., id.
[15] Promulgated by the Civil Service
Commission through Resolution No. 991936 dated