A.M. No. P-01-1508. February 7, 2003.
JUDGE EVELYN GAMOTIN NERY, complainant, vs. MELLARDO C. GAMOLO, Process Server, MCTC, Opol-El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

In an office memorandum dated October 24, 2000, Judge Evelyn Gamotin Nery of the MCTC of Opol-El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, imposed a five-day suspension on respondent Mellardo C. Gamolo, a Process Server, for neglect of duty. The suspension was based on Gamolo’s failure to make returns of service of summons in six civil cases despite a prior memorandum requiring him to show cause and his history of similar infractions and unauthorized absences. Judge Nery furnished a copy of this suspension order to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The OCA found the imposition improper, noting that under OCA Circular No. 30-91, a presiding judge’s disciplinary power is limited to light offenses. Neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense under the Civil Service Law, requiring referral to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court, in a resolution dated August 13, 2001, required Judge Nery to explain her action, treated her memorandum as an administrative complaint, required Gamolo to comment, and considered the imposed suspension as merely preventive pending final adjudication.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Mellardo C. Gamolo is administratively liable for neglect of duty, and if so, what is the proper penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Gamolo guilty of simple neglect of duty. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental duty of court personnel to perform their responsibilities with diligence and efficiency to uphold public trust in the judiciary. Gamolo’s repeated failure to make timely returns of summons, despite several memoranda and a history of unauthorized absences, constitutes a clear dereliction of this duty. His actions caused undue delay in court proceedings, prejudicing the administration of justice.
Regarding the penalty, the Court clarified that while Judge Nery acted with good intention, her immediate imposition of a five-day suspension was procedurally incorrect for a less grave offense. The proper procedure was referral to the Supreme Court. Applying the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999), simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Considering Gamolo’s apologies, promise to reform, and the absence of proven malice, the Court imposed a suspension of one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning against repetition. The Court also affirmed that the earlier five-day suspension was correctly deemed a valid preventive suspension under the rules, as the charge involved neglect in the performance of duty.