CRESENCIO GARCIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALBERTO ASILO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, MALOLOS, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

In a letter-complaint subscribed and sworn to on October 21, 1977
addressed to the Secretary of Justice, Cresencio Garcia charged Alberto Asilo,
Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance at Malolos, Bulacan, with
negligence in the service of summons upon the defendants in two civil cases^[1]
instituted in the Court of First Instance at Manila.

The complainant, Cresencio Garcia, alleged that on August 18,
1977 he filed with the Office of the Pro­vincial Sheriff of Malolos, Bulacan
the summonses and corresponding copies of the complaints to be served upon the
defendants Aurelio Sanchez and Ceferino Perez whose respective given addresses
were Borol 1st, Balag­tas, Bulacan and Bonga Mayor, Bustos, Bulacan; that he
paid the respondent for the service of the summons the total amount of Thirty
Pesos (P30.00) but the res­pondent issued two official receipts^[2]
covering only the amount of Eleven Pesos and Ninety Centavos (P11.90); and that
the respondent had failed to serve the summonses “up to October 18,
1977” despite complainant’s “follow-ups” in respondent’s office.

In his comment on the complaint, the respondent explained that he
had earnestly tried to serve the summonses upon the defendants Perez and
Sanchez as early as August 23 and 26, 1977 respectively, but both could not be
found at their given addresses; that eventually, on November 21, 1977 the
summons for Perez was left by respondent with said defendant’s wife, in spite
of her refusal to receive it, at their residence at Bonga, Bustos, Bulacan
which respondent noted to be a place different from that stated in the summons;
that the next day, November 22, 1977, respondent personally served the summons
on Sanchez when he chanced upon the latter while riding a tricycle in Balagtas,
Bulacan; and that the respondent made his returns of the summonses to the court
of origin by way of letter reports dated November 29, 1977.^[3]

There is no need to conduct a formal investigation of this
charge, the facts of record being sufficient to provide a basis for determining
whether or not the res­pondent is to be held administratively liable.^[4]
The fact is that it took respondent some three months to finally serve the
summonses upon the defendants. The
respondent’s excuse for his delay cannot warrant a com­plete exoneration.

The respondent did not deny the allegation that he demanded and
was given by the complainant the sum of P18.10 for which no receipt was
issued. There is abso­lutely no
justification for this act of the respondent considering that there are only
two defendants to be served with summons. The respondent is guilty of an illegal exaction. The amount of P11.90 for which the
respondent had issued two official receipts was more than enough to pay for the
sheriff’s fees. For having demanded the
amount of P18.10 for which he did not issue a receipt, the respondent should be
suspended for three (3) months without pay. A more severe penalty would have been im­posed were it not for the fact
that his personal record^[5]
shows that the respondent has been a deputy sheriff since November 15,
1956. During the twenty-two (22) years
that he occupied the position, he was never admi­nistratively held to account
for any official misconduct.

WHEREFORE, the respondent deputy sheriff is hereby
suspended for a period of three (3) months without pay effective from his
receipt of this resolution, and he is ordered to refund to the complainant the
P18.10 and is warned that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with
more severely.

The respondent is also admonished to be prompt in attending to
his duties in the future, and is warned that a repetition of this negligence
will be dealt with more drastically.

Let this resolution be made of record in the respondent’s
personal record in this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Civil Cases Nos. 110217 and 110218, entitled “Remedios Garcia, et al. vs.
Aurelio Sanchez and Ceferino Perez”.

^[2]
The complaint mentioned Official Receipts Nos. 6154005 and 6154006 copies of
which were alleged to have been attached to his letter-complaint, but these are
missing.

^[3]
Copies of the returns were attached to respondent’s comment as Annexes
“A” and “B”, pp. 9 and 10 of Rollo.

^[4]
In consonance with the precedent in Aquino vs. Aficial, Adm. Matter
No. P-1065, Jan. 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 222, 226.

^[5]
The 201 file of respondent.