A.M. No. P-2208. February 24, 1981. THE PHILIPPINE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. ARSENIO D. TABADDA, Deputy Sheriff of Quezon City, respondent.
FACTS

The Philippine Trial Lawyers Association filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Arsenio D. Tabadda for inefficiency and incompetence. The charges stemmed from his failure to serve summons in Civil Case No. IV-33681, “Sigma-Mariwasa, Inc. vs. Ocampo’s Quezon City Appliance Marketing Center.” For the original summons on October 10, 1978, Tabadda submitted a return stating service was not effected because a secretary, Cleofe Lacsamana, informed him that no one was authorized to receive process per a memorandum from the absent owner, Mrs. Ocampo.
An alias summons was later issued and again assigned to Tabadda. In a return dated across multiple dates in January and February 1979, he certified that he attempted service several times but the persons he encountered refused to identify themselves, and the duly authorized person could not be contacted. Complainant alleged these returns demonstrated deficiency, causing irreparable damage to the plaintiff. Respondent defended himself, claiming the defendant corporation’s personnel were hostile and non-cooperative, and he suggested that plaintiff’s counsel furnish the names of persons to serve or provide a companion, which was ignored.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Arsenio D. Tabadda is administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties for failing to properly serve summons upon a domestic corporation.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the investigating Executive Judge, which concluded Tabadda failed to perform his duty with the required responsibility and efficiency. The legal logic is anchored on his neglect of a clear procedural rule and his lack of diligence. Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court explicitly allows service of summons upon a domestic corporation on its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any director.
The investigation found Tabadda’s explanations not credible. During his attempts, he spoke with identifiable individuals like the secretary and the cashier, upon whom he could have tendered the summons. His returns manifested a devious way of avoiding service by claiming an inability to identify anyone, which was contrary to human experience and his own prior ability to identify the secretary. As an officer of the court with long experience since 1960, he was expected to exercise zeal and not merely accept excuses from corporate personnel. His failure to utilize the statutory modes of substituted service constituted inefficiency and lack of responsibility. Considering it was his first offense and the underlying case was amicably settled, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to two months’ salary with a stern warning against repetition.