A.M. No. P-00-1426. February 23, 2001
Judge Jose P. Soberano, Jr. vs. Adelia P. Nebres, Process Server

FACTS

Judge Jose P. Soberano, Jr., presiding judge of the RTC, Branch 58, Cebu City, filed an administrative complaint against Adelia P. Nebres, a process server in his sala, for gross neglect of duty. The complainant alleged that respondent repeatedly failed to serve court orders, subpoenas, and warrants upon parties and counsels despite having adequate time to do so. These failures resulted in the postponement and cancellation of scheduled hearings. When reminded of her neglect, respondent reportedly reacted with arrogance, insolence, and anger, compelling the judge to resort to serving processes by mail or through the sheriff. The judge subsequently issued a memorandum directing her to return all unserved processes.
The complainant further informed the Court that respondent last reported for work on April 3, 1998. She thereafter filed an application for leave and requested a transfer to another office. However, her daily time records and other pertinent documents were not verified or approved by the Branch Clerk of Court due to her pending administrative case, and she had not submitted the required clearance for money and property accountabilities. The judge prayed for her dismissal and the assignment of a replacement process server.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Adelia P. Nebres is administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found the allegations of gross neglect of duty to be substantiated. A process server plays a crucial role in the administration of justice, as the proper and timely service of court processes is essential to ensure due process and the orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. Respondent’s repeated failure to perform this core duty, which caused hearing delays, constitutes a serious dereliction of her official responsibilities.
However, the Court noted that respondent had already been dropped from the rolls in a prior resolution dated March 2, 1999. Consequently, the complainant’s prayer for her dismissal had become moot and academic. Administrative penalties are imposed not merely as a punitive measure but also to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Since dismissal was no longer a viable sanction, the Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to impose a fine. Accordingly, respondent Adelia P. Nebres was ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), to be deducted from any withheld benefits. The judge’s request for a new process server was referred to the OCA for appropriate action.