G.R. No. A.M. No. 319 June 30, 1977
FERMIN ACOSTA, complainant, vs. RUBEN MAGTOTO, Deputy Sheriff, CFI, Malolos, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fermin G. Acosta, in a sworn letter dated October 8, 1974, charged Deputy Sheriff Ruben Magtoto with negligence in the performance of his official duties. The charge stemmed from Magtoto’s alleged failure to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant, Irineo Carreon, in Civil Case No. 4522-F (“Brigida Gatchalian et al. vs. Irineo Carreon”). Acosta alleged that the summons and complaint were furnished to the Bulacan Sheriff’s Office on August 12, 1974, for service, and that respondent Magtoto was the deputy assigned to this task. From August 12 until October 4, 1974, no return of service was made, causing an unnecessary delay of approximately two months in the court proceedings. The Provincial Sheriff subsequently directed Magtoto to explain the omission.
In his answer dated October 31, 1974, respondent Magtoto admitted receiving the summons for service on August 21, 1974. He claimed that he attempted service two weeks later but found the defendant’s house closed with no one to receive the documents. He stated he then made a second attempt on October 5, 1974, successfully serving the papers on the defendant’s son, Jacinto Carreon. As justification for the delay, Magtoto cited his heavy workload, noting his duties for the Provincial Sheriff’s Office and his additional assignment to serve all processes for Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Deputy Sheriff Ruben Magtoto is administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duty for the delayed service of court summons.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Magtoto administratively liable for negligence. The Court, dispensing with a formal investigation as the material facts were uncontested, held that Magtoto’s explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and constituted a failure to perform his duty with due diligence. The legal logic centers on the essential role of sheriffs as key officers in the administration of justice, tasked with promptly executing court processes to ensure the speedy disposition of cases. Any unwarranted delay undermines this judicial function.
The Court scrutinized the timeline: Magtoto received the assignment on August 21 but made his first attempt only after two weeks. He then waited approximately another month before making the second, successful attempt on October 5. This pace was deemed lackadaisical. The Court rejected his plea of heavy workload as a valid excuse, emphasizing that such circumstances do not absolve an officer from the responsibility of performing assigned duties with reasonable promptness. His conduct demonstrated a remiss attitude not conducive to efficient justice administration. Accordingly, the Court reprimanded Ruben Magtoto with a stern warning that a repetition of such failure would be dealt with more severely.