A.M. No. P-05-2072. August 13, 2008. ROMMEL N. MACASPAC, complainant, vs. RICARDO C. FLORES, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant PO1 Rommel Macaspac, the arresting officer in Criminal Case Nos. 9038 and 9039 for violation of R.A. No. 9165 , alleged that respondent Process Server Ricardo Flores failed to serve a subpoena upon him for a scheduled hearing. The cases were subsequently dismissed by the court due to the prosecution’s failure to present the arresting officer. Complainant asserted that on the date respondent claimed service was attempted, he was on duty at the Orani Police Station and had not yet been reassigned. He accused respondent of making a false return, stating he could not serve the subpoena because complainant had been transferred, without verifying this information, which constituted serious neglect of duty detrimental to the government’s anti-drug campaign.
In his defense, respondent countered that he acted on information from a fellow police officer, SPO3 Capuli, that complainant had been reassigned. He argued he should not be faulted for reporting this fact and that complainant’s general allegations about other dismissed cases were unsupported. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent’s explanation unmeritorious, concluding his attempt to serve the subpoena was perfunctory and his failure to verify the information constituted neglect of duty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Process Server Ricardo Flores is administratively liable for neglect of duty in relation to his failure to serve the subpoena.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings but modified the penalty. Neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task, resulting from carelessness or indifference. As a process server, respondent had a duty to exert diligent efforts to serve court processes. His reliance on unverified information from a third party, without making further inquiries to ascertain the whereabouts of the complainant—who was still stationed at the same police office at the time—demonstrated a lack of due diligence. This perfunctory performance of his duty directly led to the non-appearance of a vital witness and the dismissal of the criminal cases.
The Court emphasized that such negligence adversely impacts the administration of justice, especially in serious cases involving illegal drugs. While the OCA recommended a fine, the Court applied the prevailing Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, which classify simple neglect as a less grave offense punishable by suspension. Considering the consequences, respondent was suspended for three months without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.