G.R. No. P-05-1946. January 31, 2005
JUDGE RODERICK A. MAXINO, complainant, vs. HERMOLO B. FABUGAIS, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Dumaguete City, Branch 2, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Hermolo B. Fabugais, a Process Server, requested a transfer from his assignment, alleging harassment and oppression from Presiding Judge Roderick A. Maxino. He claimed the judge gave him an “unsatisfactory” performance rating and pressured him to resign to avoid an administrative complaint. In response, Judge Maxino admitted advising the respondent to resign due to unsatisfactory performance. The judge presented court logbook entries showing significant delays in the service of summons and subpoenas by the respondent, spanning months in several cases. He also cited an instance where a subpoena was returned as unserved, yet the intended recipient appeared in court.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) treated the judge’s letter as an administrative complaint. An investigation by the Executive Judge confirmed the delays, noting the respondent admitted to serving processes on a monthly batch basis rather than promptly upon issuance. The respondent defended himself by citing a heavy workload, incorrect addresses, and uncooperative parties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Hermolo B. Fabugais is administratively liable for neglect of duty.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that court personnel, especially process servers, must perform their duties with utmost diligence and promptness, as delays undermine the efficient administration of justice. The evidence, including the court logbook and the investigation report, conclusively established that the respondent failed to serve court processes in a timely manner. His practice of batching services monthly, resulting in delays of several months, constitutes a failure to give the attention required by his task.
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give due attention to an expected task. Under Civil Service rules, it is a less grave offense. The Court found the recommended fine insufficient given the respondent’s disregard for his core function, which caused actual prejudice to court operations. However, considering his length of service, the Court imposed a two-month suspension. The respondent’s improper attempt to secure a transfer by writing directly to the OCA, bypassing the proper channel of the Executive Judge, was also noted. The suspension serves as a stern warning, with the admonition that repetition will be dealt with more severely.