AM P 05 2092; (November, 2006) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-2092. November 10, 2006.
ATTY. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., Complainant, vs. MILA AMANTE-CASICAS, Process Server, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 68, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. filed a complaint for sum of money and paid the corresponding service of summons fee on September 7, 2004. The case was raffled to MeTC, Pasig City, Branch 68. Upon his follow-up two weeks later, respondent Process Server Mila Amante-Casicas initially claimed no fee was paid, but upon being shown the official receipt, she promised to serve the summons and provide a return within one week. She failed to do so despite numerous follow-ups, prompting the filing of this administrative complaint on November 24, 2004.
In her Comment, respondent claimed she had served the summons via substituted service on November 10, 2004, explaining that her initial attempts at personal service failed as the defendants were not around. She attributed the delay to her heavy workload, which included being designated as the criminal-in-charge and prioritizing service for detention prisoners as instructed by the judge. Complainant later noted that respondent also delayed mailing him a copy of her Comment by 20 days.
ISSUE
Whether respondent is administratively liable for the delay in serving the summons.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court emphasized that a process server plays a critical role in the speedy administration of justice, as service of summons confers jurisdiction over the defendant. The duty to serve court processes promptly and without delay is paramount. Respondent’s service of the summons more than two months after the filing of the complaint and payment of fees constituted a failure to give due attention to her expected task, signifying carelessness or indifference.
The Court rejected her defense of heavy workload as a justification. While a heavy caseload may mitigate liability, it does not exempt a public officer from administrative responsibility. Otherwise, it would become a convenient excuse to evade punishment, to the detriment of public service. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, Simple Neglect of Duty is a less grave offense. Accordingly, respondent is SUSPENDED for One Month and One Day without pay and sternly warned that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.