Case Digest (A.M. No. P-14-3271)
Facts:
Atty. Alan A. Tan v. Elmer S. Azcueta, A.M. No. P-14-3271 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3640-P], October 22, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Atty. Alan A. Tan, counsel for Jennelyn Yabut‑Gopole, filed an administrative affidavit‑complaint dated May 4, 2011 against respondent Elmer S. Azcueta, a Process Server of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Imus, Cavite, charging gross negligence in the performance of his duty. The administrative case arose from an underlying civil action (Civil Case No. 4263‑10) for damages with a prayer for grave oral defamation originally filed by Atty. Tan on November 4, 2010 in the RTC of Imus.
A summons was issued by the RTC on November 18, 2010 but, according to Atty. Tan, remained unserved up to the filing of the administrative complaint and the civil action could not proceed because the defendant had not filed an answer. In response, respondent denied failing to serve and attached as exhibits his Returns of Summons dated January 4, 2011; February 25, 2011; April 26, 2011; and May 27, 2011, asserting he attempted service on four occasions but encountered only a minor or other occupants who reported the defendant absent; he claimed substituted service was effected on May 27, 2011 by leaving the summons with one Jennylee Catalan.
Acting on the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation, the Court on November 25, 2013 referred the matter to Executive Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr. (Investigating Judge) of the RTC, Imus for investigation, report and recommendation. The Investigating Judge set hearings, but Atty. Tan failed to appear at scheduled sessions (including hearings on February 19, 2014 and March 11, 2014); only respondent appeared and testified. The Investigating Judge found that the respondent had in fact attempted service on three dates and effected substituted service on the fourth, but noted the intervals between attempts (Jan. 4 to Feb. 25 = 52 days; Feb. 25 to Apr. 26 = 60 days; Apr. 26 to May 27 = 31 days) were excessively long and recommended a one‑month suspension without pay, with a warning against recurrence.
The Court reviewed the Investigating Judge’s report, considered respondent’s explanation of heavy workload and the evidence that the alleged defendant had evaded service, and noted that the par...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent committed gross negligence (or other administrative offense) in failing to promptly serve the summons.
- Whether the complainant’s failure to appear in the investigative hearings and the parties’ Compromise Agreement warranted dismissal of the administrative complaint.
- What penalty, if any, should...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)