Title
PACLIBAR vs. PAMPOSA
Case
A.M. No. P-03-1737
Decision Date
Nov 16, 2006
A clerk of court's gross misconduct, involving improper service of summons and negligence in record-keeping, leads to forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification from government employment.
Font Size

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-03-1737)

Facts:

  • Nicolas Paclibar filed a verified letter-complaint against Renan V. Pamposa, Clerk of Court II of the MCTC in Passi-San Enrique, Iloilo City, on October 9, 2001.
  • The complaint arose from a case filed by Paclibar for unlawful detainer against Carlos Benedicto, docketed as Civil Case No. 245, on February 7, 2000.
  • After two months without a response from Benedicto, Paclibar inquired about the case status and discovered that the summons was sent via registered mail on February 18, 2000, despite Benedicto's residence being only two kilometers from the court.
  • This method of service violated Section 6, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires personal service when practicable.
  • On June 2, 2000, Pamposa served the summons personally, but later, the records for Civil Case No. 245 were found to be missing.
  • Pamposa requested copies of court processes and pleadings from Paclibar's counsel without a court order to reconstitute the records.
  • The Court Administrator, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., directed Pamposa to comment on the complaint twice, but he failed to respond.
  • On July 2, 2003, Velasco reported that Pamposa had been AWOL since December 3, 2001, recommending disciplinary action.
  • The Supreme Court withheld Pamposa's salaries and benefits and declared his position vacant due to his absence.
  • The allegations in the complaint were unchallenged and established, leading to the evaluation of Pamposa's actions as gross ignorance of the law and serious neglect of duty.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Court found Renan V. Pamposa guilty of gross ignorance of the law for failing to serve the summons personally to Carlos Benedicto.
  • The Court ruled that Pamposa exhibited serious neglect of duty by causing the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 245.
  • The Court ordered the forfeiture of Pamposa's ret...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that service of summons must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Section 6, Rule 14, which mandates personal service when practicable.
  • The Court noted that sending the summons via registered mail was unjustifiable given Benedict...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.