A.M. No. P-225. March 3, 1975.
Juan L. Nassr, Jr., et al., represented by their guardian Juan D. Nassr, Sr., complainants, vs. Arthur Moltio, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from the conduct of respondent Arthur Moltio, a Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet. In December 1973, Civil Case No. 2589, an injunction suit filed by the Nassrs, was pending. The court issued an order dated December 12, 1973, dissolving a previously granted writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent sheriff received the order for service upon the parties.
Respondent promptly served copies of the dissolution order on December 13, 1973, to the counsel for the defendants (the Sta. Marias) and the City Legal Officer. He also mailed a copy to another defendant’s counsel on December 15. However, he failed to serve a copy upon Atty. Constante Pimentel, counsel for the plaintiff Nassrs (the complainants herein), until January 2, 1974. This delay occurred despite Atty. Pimentel’s office being located just across the City Hall where the courthouse was situated.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for his failure to promptly serve the court’s order dissolving the preliminary injunction upon the complainants’ counsel.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his actuations highly censurable. The legal logic centers on the fundamental duty of a sheriff as an officer of the court to serve court processes with utmost diligence, promptness, and impartiality. His failure to promptly serve the order upon the complainants’ counsel was not mere inadvertence but was deliberate and calculated. By serving the adverse parties immediately while unjustifiably delaying service to the complainants, he effectively deprived them of their opportunity to seek reconsideration or oppose the dissolution order. This enabled the Sta. Marias to operate the disputed Session Theatre during the lucrative Christmas season, which was the very subject of the injunction.
The Court rejected respondent’s excuse of not remembering the service or possibly misplacing the proof of service. This was deemed a plain admission of gross negligence and incompetence, indicating possible collusion with the adverse party. Consequently, he was found guilty of negligence, incompetence, and willful obstruction to the efficient service of court processes. However, as his temporary appointment had already expired, no disciplinary action beyond recording the findings in his personal record could be imposed. The ruling underscores that court personnel must execute their duties with strict neutrality and efficiency to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.