G.R. No. 2334 - Pastor vs. Nicasio

Respondent Alberto V. Garong, Court Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40, was charged with frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. C-3406.
On March 3, 1993, then Presiding Judge Marciano T. Virola rendered a judgment finding Garong guilty beyond reasonable doubt with a sentence ranging from four (4) months of Arresto Mayor (minimum) to four (4) years and two (2) months of Prision Correccional (maximum), along with accessory penalties and the payment of costs.

The decision of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a resolution promulgated on August 9, 1996.
The appellate decision became final on November 15, 1996, with the corresponding Entry of Judgment duly made.
Issues arose regarding the service of the decision as the copy was sent to an old address and to an unauthorized office personnel during the period when the respondent was on leave, triggering questions of whether proper notice was given.

On May 24, 1999, Judge Tomas C. Leynes, the Executive and Presiding Judge of RTC Calapan City, requested the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to effect respondent Garong’s termination from service due to his continuing employment despite the criminal conviction.
Consequently, on June 1, 1999, the OCA filed an administrative complaint against Garong, seeking his dismissal with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits, and with prejudice to his re-employment in any government agency or government-owned or controlled corporation.
The filing was predicated on adopting the findings of the lower courts (both trial and appellate levels) in lieu of a fresh investigation.

On September 23, 1999, respondent Garong filed a Manifestation With Motion To Dismiss the administrative complaint, arguing that the complaint lacked cause of action.
He raised allegations regarding procedural irregularities such as:

The validation of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution directing the Entry of Judgment in his criminal case was contested.
The issuance of an Order of Execution of Judgment and Warrant of Arrest (dated March 4, 1999) by Acting Presiding Judge Leynes, which respondent sought to quash through an Urgent Motion.
His filing of a Motion for Inhibition against Judge Leynes, grounded on his previous complaints of Falsification of Public Document and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The supplemental pleading filed in support of quashing the warrant of arrest.

On April 16, 1999, respondent also filed a Motion To Lift/Set Aside the Entry Of Judgment with the Court of Appeals, seeking to recall the Order of Execution and Warrant based on the alleged void service of the judgment.

The appellate court found that respondent was not properly served with the decision:

The copy of the judgment was mailed to his former address and to an unauthorized office personnel, despite a formal notice of change of address filed by respondent’s counsel.
The service to a non-counsel representative (Gabriel Aquino) was invalid, referencing the precedent that service must be directed to the counsel of record.

The Court of Appeals held that because of improper service, the commencement of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration was affected.
The appellate court, applying the principle that strict compliance to technical rules must yield to the demands of substantive justice, emphasized that where personal liberty is at stake, substantive justice overrides procedural technicalities.

Given the potential grave consequence on the respondent’s life, liberty, and career, the Court of Appeals and supervisory courts adopted a liberal construction of procedural rules.
In view of these circumstances and the pending appeal regarding the criminal conviction and corresponding judgment, the administrative proceedings against respondent Garong were held in abeyance until the final resolution of his appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 14852.

Whether the service of the copy of the judgment was proper and in accordance with the rules, considering the allegations of:

Whether the improper service of notice affected the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration.
Whether technical defects in the service of process should preclude the respondent from fully defending himself, especially when his personal liberty and employment are at stake.
Whether the administrative complaint should be allowed to proceed concurrently with the pending appeal or if it must be suspended pending the resolution of the criminal case.