A.M. No. P-2448. June 29, 1981.
Judge Amante Purisima, complainant, vs. Rogelio Abello, Process Server, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rogelio Abello, a process server in Manila, received a notice of pre-trial on June 10, 1980, for service upon counsel in a civil case. All other processes received that day were duly served. However, this specific notice was inadvertently inserted into a folder containing his personal papers instead of the designated “For Service” folder. The oversight was discovered only on July 8, 1980, well after the scheduled pre-trial date of June 30. Upon discovery, respondent immediately went to the counsel’s office to apologize and left the notice with the secretary.
Presiding Judge Amante Purisima issued an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. In his manifestation, respondent explained the misplacement was unintentional and without any aim to delay justice. Judge Purisima found the explanation unsatisfactory, characterizing it as showing indifference and irresponsibility, and forwarded the matter for disciplinary action. An investigation was subsequently conducted.

ISSUE

Whether respondent process server Rogelio Abello should be held administratively liable for his failure to timely serve a court notice.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but mitigating circumstances warrant a nominal penalty. The Court emphasized that court personnel, especially those involved in serving processes, must exercise utmost care and diligence as they are integral to the prompt administration of justice. Negligence in handling court documents, such as misplacing a notice, constitutes a breach of this duty and cannot be countenanced.
However, the Court considered significant mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sanction. Respondent had an unblemished service record of over fifteen years, and the negligence was an isolated incident. His immediate action upon discovering the error and his contrite attitude during the investigation demonstrated a lack of malicious intent. The investigating judge and Court Administrator recommended a nominal fine with a stern warning. The Court concurred, finding that respondent’s long and otherwise satisfactory service, coupled with his remorse and promise of future care, justified a lenient disciplinary measure. Accordingly, a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) was imposed with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.