Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD
DIVISION
|
COL. MAURICIO
A. SANTIAGO, JR. (Ret.), Complainant, - versus - ARTHUR M.
CAMANGYAN, Process Server, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-11-2977 (Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 09-3254-P) Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, SERENO,* JJ. Promulgated: September 14, 2011 |
x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This administrative case arose from a
letter-complaint filed by Col. Mauricio A. Santiago, Jr. (Ret.) (complainant)
on September 17, 2009 with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
charging Arthur M. Camangyan (respondent), Process Server, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, Toledo City (RTC), with neglect of duty relative
to Civil Case No. T-2083.
In his letter,[1] complainant
alleged that he was the respondent in the aforesaid case for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage; that Judge Cesar O. Estrera (Judge Estrera), RTC Presiding
Judge, issued a Notice setting the pre-trial conference and pre-trial of the
said case on August 13, 2009 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon; that respondent
intentionally, deliberately and with malicious intent did not serve him a copy
of the notice but his wife and her counsel were duly furnished a copy thereof; that
had he not telephoned Judge Estrera on August 7, 2009 at around 2:30 oclock in
the afternoon, he would not have known
of the scheduled pre-conference and pre-trial; that justice would have been
denied him because of the deliberate, malicious and corrupt act of respondent;
and that respondent might tamper or steal the evidence he already submitted to
the court in support of his defense.
In its 1st Indorsement[2] dated
In his counter-affidavit,[3] respondent
denied the allegations for being speculative, fallacious and baseless. He
asserted that the complaint was an overreaction and an unnecessary display of
temper and superiority. Respondent claimed that, most of the time, complainant would
demonstrate arrogance as manifested in his Answer to the Complaint in Civil
Case No. T-2083 and when complainant showed him his firearm after he served the
summons. Respondent averred that his failure to serve a copy of the notice to complainant
was not deliberate and malicious. He explained that he was supposed to
personally serve a copy of the notice the following day but he was told by
Judge Estrera that there was no need to serve the notice since he already
informed the complainant of the scheduled hearing. He further averred that his
presence in the office, at that time, was necessary because the Supreme Court was
conducting a judicial audit in connection with the retirement of Judge Estrera.
As to the allegations of corruption, tampering and
stealing of evidence, respondent countered that these were unsubstantiated,
outrageous and a clear manifestation of distrust in the court. He claimed that after
complainants Answer was received by the court on
In its Report[4] dated P1,000.00) with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
The Court opts to give the respondent the benefit of
the doubt and deems that no penalty be imposed upon him.
As a process server, it is the duty of respondent to
ensure that court notices are promptly served upon the parties. Given the
nature of his duty, respondent must perform his assigned tasks with dedication,
efficiency and utmost responsibility.[5] In the
case of Alvarez v. Bulao,[6] the Court expounded on the importance of the role of
a process server, thus:
The duties of process servers are vital to the machinery of
the justice system. Utmost care is required in the performance of their
functions. They must see to it that summonses, writs and other court processes
are duly and expeditiously served upon the parties, consistent with the
constitutional mandate of speedy and fair dispensation of justice. To be
sure, the wheels of justice will not run without the cooperation of court
personnel composed of, among others, process servers. Thus, there is no
room for any lackadaisical attitude that would show inefficiency and
incompetence.
In the present case, respondent admitted that he
failed to serve the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference and Pre-trial to complainant.
He explained, however, that he was instructed by Judge Estrera not to serve the
notice to complainant anymore because the latter was already informed through
their phone conversation of the scheduled hearing and that his presence in the
office was indispensable in view of the judicial audit that was being conducted
by the Supreme Court personnel. With the Judge himself directing respondent not
to serve the notice anymore, he could not do otherwise. To disregard the instruction of the Judge
might be considered as insubordination.
Under the circumstances, the Court considers his
failure as not deliberate and malicious.
Nevertheless, respondent is reminded to perform his duty diligently for
the orderly administration of justice. There is a need to serve the notice on
the complainant not only to make the act official but also to enable him to
make the proper return to reflect what transpired. The possibility that the complainant might deny
that he had been so informed by the Judge is not remote. Next time, the Court
will not be as tolerant and will not hesitate to impose the proper sanctions
should he neglect to perform his duties in the future.
WHEREFORE, respondent Arthur M. Camangyan, Process Server,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 29,
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice