Case Digest (A.M. No. P-05-2092)
Facts:
Atty. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. v. Mila Amante-Casicas, A.M. No. P-05-2092 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2064-P), November 10, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Atty. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., filed a civil action for sum of money titled "Emilie Oblepias v. Spouses Makaraig San Agustin and Virginia San Agustin" in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasig on September 7, 2004, paid P1,000 as service-of-summons fee (Official Receipt No. 21065483), and the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11097 and raffled to Branch 68.
Two weeks after filing, Laguio inquired at Branch 68 whether summons had been served; Mila Amante-Casicas (the respondent), a process server of MTC Pasig Branch 68, initially denied knowledge that the fee had been paid. When shown the official receipt, she promised to serve the summons and supply a return within one week but failed to do so. After repeated follow-ups and what he characterized as respondent's continued nonperformance, Laguio filed an administrative complaint against the process server on November 24, 2004.
In her Comment dated January 25, 2005, respondent claimed she attempted personal service but, finding the defendants absent, effected substituted service on November 10, 2004 by leaving the summons with one Jonalyn Pardinez, described as defendants' secretary; respondent also explained her delay by citing a heavy workload (she was performing duties as criminal-in-charge and had instructions to prioritize notices in detention cases). Complainant separately alerted the Court Administrator by letter of February 23, 2005, complaining that respondent had delayed in mailing a copy of her Comment to him (the OCA copy was filed January 28, 2005 but his copy was mailed only on February 17, 2005).
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in a Report dated September 28, 2005, found that under Sec. 1, Rule 14, Rules of Court the Clerk must forthwith issue summons once fees are paid and that a process server must promptly effect service; the OCA found that respondent served (by her account) only on November 10, 2004—over two months after the complaint was filed—and recommended redocketing the IPI as a regular administrative matter and suspending respondent for One Month and One Day for simple neglect of duty. The Court redocketed the matter by Resolution of November 21, 2005 and ordered manifestations; re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Mila Amante-Casicas guilty of simple neglect of duty as a process server?
- Did respondent’s heavy workload and responsibilities (acting as criminal-in-charge and priority instructions to serve detention prisoners’ notices) excuse or mitigate her admini...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)