COL. MAURICIO A. SANTIAGO, JR. (RET.), COMPLAINANT, VS. ARTHUR M. CAMANGYAN, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, TOLEDO CITY, RESPONDENT.

Santiago versus Camangyan

The Case

This is an administrative case in which a retired colonel, Mauricio Santiago, filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator against Arthur Camangyan, a process server of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, charging him with neglect of duty. The complainant was the respondent in a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage, and he alleged that the process server deliberately failed to serve upon him the notice of pre-trial conference. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by process servers to the justice system, and at the same time shows when a process server who disobeys no one but follows the judge's own instruction will be spared a penalty.

Procedural History

The complainant filed his letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator in September 2009. The Office directed the respondent to comment on the complaint, and he answered through a counter-affidavit denying the charges. The Office then submitted its report, finding the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty and recommending a fine of One Thousand Pesos with a stern warning. The matter reached the Supreme Court as an administrative case, and the Court rendered its decision in September 2011, opting to give the respondent the benefit of the doubt and to impose no penalty.

Facts

The complainant was the respondent in Civil Case Number T-2083, a case for declaration of nullity of marriage pending before the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, presided over by Judge Cesar Estrera. The judge issued a notice setting the pre-trial conference and pre-trial for August 13, 2009 at two o'clock in the afternoon. The complainant's wife and her counsel were duly furnished copies of the notice, but the complainant himself was not served.

The complainant learned of the scheduled hearing only because he telephoned the judge on August 7, 2009. He then filed his letter-complaint, alleging that the respondent intentionally, deliberately, and with malicious intent withheld the notice from him, and expressing fear that the respondent might tamper with or steal the evidence he had submitted.

In his counter-affidavit, the respondent denied the charges as speculative and baseless. He explained that he had intended to serve the notice personally the following day, but the judge told him there was no need, since the judge had already informed the complainant of the scheduled hearing by telephone. He added that his presence in the office at that time was necessary because the Supreme Court was conducting a judicial audit in connection with the judge's retirement. He also denied the allegations of corruption, tampering, and stealing of evidence, noting that the complainant's Answer had long been attached to the records of the case.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of neglect of duty for failing to serve the notice of pre-trial conference and pre-trial upon the complainant.
• Whether or not the respondent's failure to serve the notice was deliberate and malicious, such that a penalty should be imposed upon him.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it rests on the constitutional mandate of speedy and fair dispensation of justice, which the Court invokes in describing the duties of process servers. That mandate provides:

Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution provides: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

This guarantee bears on the case because the prompt and proper service of court notices is precisely what makes the speedy disposition of cases possible.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent did fail in his duty. As a process server, it is his duty to ensure that court notices are promptly served upon the parties, and given the nature of that duty, he must perform his assigned tasks with dedication, efficiency, and utmost responsibility. The Court stressed that the duties of process servers are vital to the machinery of the justice system, that utmost care is required in the performance of their functions, and that there is no room for any lackadaisical attitude that would show inefficiency and incompetence. The respondent himself admitted that he did not serve the notice on the complainant.

On the second issue, however, the Court gave the respondent the benefit of the doubt and deemed that no penalty should be imposed. The Court found that the respondent's failure was not deliberate and malicious, because the judge himself had directed him not to serve the notice anymore, the complainant having already been informed of the scheduled hearing by telephone, and because his presence in the office was indispensable in view of the judicial audit. With the judge himself directing the respondent not to serve the notice, he could not do otherwise, and to disregard the instruction of the judge might be considered insubordination.

Even so, the Court reminded the respondent to perform his duty diligently, explaining that there is a need to serve the notice on the complainant not only to make the act official but also to enable the process server to make the proper return to reflect what transpired, since the possibility that the complainant might deny having been informed by the judge is not remote. The Court warned that next time it will not be as tolerant and will not hesitate to impose the proper sanctions.

Doctrine

A process server must ensure that court notices, summonses, writs, and other court processes are duly and expeditiously served upon the parties, and must perform this duty with dedication, efficiency, and utmost responsibility, consistent with the constitutional mandate of speedy and fair dispensation of justice. Neglect of that duty is an offense against the orderly administration of justice.

However, where the failure to serve a notice was not deliberate and malicious, because the judge himself instructed the process server not to serve it anymore, the process server is given the benefit of the doubt and no penalty is imposed, although he is admonished and warned. Service of the notice remains necessary not only to make the act official but also to enable the process server to make a proper return of what transpired.

Disposition

The Court absolved the respondent of any penalty and instead admonished him for his failure to perform his duty, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the duties of process servers are vital to the machinery of the justice system, and utmost care is required in the performance of their functions. Examiners like to use this case on the diligence owed by process servers, and on the mitigating effect of a judge's own instruction that excuses an otherwise neglectful failure to serve a court notice.