A.M. No. P-01-1519 - Ulat-Marrero vs. Torio, Jr.

The case arose from an administrative proceeding initiated against process server Antonio B. Torio, Jr.
Executive Judge Nelsonida T. Ulat-Marrero of the Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet, issued an order suspending respondent for one month (effective October 9, 2000 to November 7, 2000) on the ground of habitual absenteeism, in violation of the Civil Service Law.
The suspension order followed a memorandum (#2000-006, September 11, 2000) that directed respondent to show cause for his failure to report for duty on specific dates (August 29, September 5, September 6, and September 8, 2000).

The order alleged that on August 29, 2000, respondent did not report in the morning; on September 5, 2000, he did not report in the afternoon; and on September 6 and 8, 2000, he was AWOL.
In his answer, respondent admitted his fault but attributed his absences to personal reasons, claiming his duty as a process server required him to serve court processes both on official time and on weekends.
He argued that on August 29, he had declared his absence in the logbook while actually performing his duty by serving orders to several lawyers.
For the September 5 incident, he maintained that he was out serving court processes, and for September 6 and 8, he contended that he had filed the necessary leave of absence approved by his superior.

The respondent protested the imposition of the suspension in a letter dated January 7, 2002, claiming that his absences were either duly recorded or approved as leave.
The OCA, questioning the validity of the suspension order under Supreme Court Circular No. 30-91, recommended:

Re-docketing the case as a regular administrative case.
Treating the suspension as a preventive measure pending final adjudication.
Warning Executive Judge Marrero that she had no authority to discipline for grave offenses beyond her supervisory limits.

The OCA’s recommendations were adopted by the Court in its Resolution dated October 24, 2001.

The record shows a series of memoranda and confrontations addressing respondent’s repeated failure to attach return receipts in case records, numbering as high as 942 copies.
The Executive Judge’s letter dated January 18, 2002, further detailed instances where respondent would report only in the afternoons under the guise of serving cour processes, thereby neglecting his morning duty.
Despite repeated admonishments, respondent continuously apologized without demonstrating lasting corrective measures until partial compliance was eventually shown.

The OCA and the Court found respondent administratively liable for neglect of duty based on his repeated remissness despite acknowledging that he had made efforts to comply after the suspension.
It was emphasized that while his performance fell short, it constituted simple neglect of duty and not the habitual absenteeism as defined under the Civil Service Law.
Evidence confirmed that some of the applicant’s absences were either duly declared or approved, which critically affected the determination of the offense.

Whether the suspension imposed by Executive Judge Marrero was within the scope of her disciplinary authority under the Civil Service Law and Supreme Court Circular No. 30-91.
Whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to habitual absenteeism warranting a grave disciplinary sanction, or merely constituted simple neglect of duty.
Whether the process server’s duty performance—including the timing and nature of his absences—justifies a one-month suspension, and if such suspension should have been imposed by the appropriate supervisory authority.
Whether the proper administrative procedure was followed in disciplining a court personnel, given that executive judges are limited to handling only light offenses.