ROMMEL N. MACASPAC, COMPLAINANT, VS. RICARDO C. FLORES, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, RESPONDENT.

Macaspac versus Flores

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Rommel Macaspac, a police officer, against Ricardo Flores, a process server of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan. The complainant charges the respondent with serious neglect of duty, arising from the respondent's failure to serve a subpoena on the complainant as arresting officer in two dangerous drugs cases, which failure led to the dismissal of those cases. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by process servers, and because it clarifies the distinction between simple neglect of duty and willful neglect, and the penalty that attaches to each.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, which directed the respondent to file his comment. After the parties filed their pleadings, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report, finding the respondent guilty of neglect of duty and recommending a fine of 3,000 pesos, conformably with the ruling in Musni versus Morales. The Supreme Court then required the respondent to manifest whether he agreed to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings, and he assented. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court as a regular administrative matter.

Facts

The complainant was previously assigned at the police station in Orani, Bataan. On January 14, 2003, he apprehended a certain Nova Catapang for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Informations were filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan. The complainant, knowing he was bound to testify as the arresting officer, waited for a notice of hearing, but none came until his reassignment on December 19, 2003.

On July 22, 2004, the complainant learned that the criminal cases had been dismissed by an order dated June 30, 2004, which stated that the prosecution failed because of the failure of the purported arresting officer to appear at the scheduled hearings. Upon inquiry with the court, he was informed that the respondent had made a report at the back of the subpoena dated October 22, 2003, certifying that he had not served a copy of the subpoena on November 18, 2003 because the complainant was allegedly already assigned at a police station in Tondo, Manila, according to a certain SPO3 Antonio Capuli of the police in Orani, Bataan.

The complainant alleged that this report was false, because on the date in question he was in fact the desk officer on duty at the same station in Orani, Bataan. The respondent countered that he simply made a candid and truthful statement of fact, that he first sought the complainant and only inquired from colleagues when the complainant could not be found, and that he could not have gone beyond the advice of SPO3 Capuli. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the subpoena was not served, that the complainant was still the desk officer at Orani as of November 18, 2003, and that the respondent's attempt to serve the subpoena was perfunctory.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of neglect of duty for failing to serve the subpoena on the complainant.
• Whether or not the respondent's reliance on the information given by SPO3 Capuli excuses him from administrative liability.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator corresponds to the range of penalties provided under the prevailing rules.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This provision, made applicable to subpoenas, establishes personal service as the first mode of service.

Section 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This provision establishes substituted service as the alternative mode when personal service is not possible, and the respondent failed to resort to it.

Section 52 (B) (1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

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.

This provision supplies the penalty range that the Court applied in place of the fine recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. Documentary evidence substantiated that on November 18, 2003, the complainant was still assigned as desk officer at the police station in Orani, Bataan. The Court deduced that either the respondent deliberately made a false report because he did not actually go to the police station, or he tried to serve the subpoena but did not pursue it upon relying on the representation of SPO3 Capuli. Since fraud or malice cannot be ascribed in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, the Court regarded the latter scenario as logical.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent cannot escape administrative liability. He did not diligently exert his best effort to ascertain the true whereabouts of the complainant, and conveniently depended on a lone informant instead of double checking the data he obtained. The Court noted that personal service and substituted service are the two modes of serving a subpoena, and that after his frustrated attempt at personal service, the respondent acted no further. He did not attest that he served the subpoena by leaving a copy at the complainant's dwelling place or at the police station, even though he had ample time to do so before the scheduled appearance on February 12, 2004. The Court defined simple neglect of duty as 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, a term that does not necessarily include willful neglect or intentional official wrongdoing.

On the third issue, the Court held that the recommended fine of 3,000 pesos does not correspond to the range of penalties under the prevailing rules, which took effect four days after the promulgation of the Musni case. Under those rules, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense carrying suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Considering the adverse effect of the respondent's negligence on the campaign against illegal drugs, the Court imposed suspension for three months without pay.

Doctrine

A process server is bound by virtue of his office to exercise the prudence, caution, and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. Service of a subpoena must comply with the modes of personal and substituted service under the Rules of Court; a perfunctory attempt at personal service, without resort to substituted service, is insufficient. Reliance on a single informant, without verifying the information, constitutes simple neglect of duty, which is 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, and which does not necessarily include willful neglect or intentional official wrongdoing. Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense penalized by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended him for three months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a process server who relies on a lone informant without verifying the information, and who fails to resort to substituted service after a failed personal service, is guilty of simple neglect of duty. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between simple neglect and willful neglect, and the correct penalty range under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.