G.R. No. P-05-2090. November 18, 2005
Estrella V. Alvarez, Complainant, vs. Joy Albert B. Bulao, Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Libmanan-Cabusao, Camarines Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a sworn complaint filed by Clerk of Court II Estrella V. Alvarez against Process Server Joy Albert B. Bulao for various offenses including falsification of Daily Time Records (DTRs), habitual absenteeism, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and insubordination. The complainant alleged that respondent rarely reported for work, falsified his attendance, ignored official memoranda, and was grossly inefficient in serving court processes, causing delays and necessitating police assistance for service. Respondent denied all charges, contending the complaint was motivated by complainant’s desire to replace him and that she had unjustly withheld his DTRs, leading to his being declared absent without official leave (AWOL).
The case was referred for investigation. The Executive Judge initially recommended dismissal due to procedural infirmities and lack of substantiation, a recommendation adopted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and initially by the Supreme Court, citing insufficient evidence. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, attaching new evidence including court orders from presiding judges sternly warning respondent for repeated failures in timely service of subpoenas and an affidavit from a private practitioner attesting to such neglect.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Joy Albert B. Bulao is administratively liable for the charges of neglect of duty and inefficiency based on the evidence presented.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and inefficiency. The Court reversed its initial dismissal upon reviewing the supplemental evidence submitted with the Motion for Reconsideration. The legal logic centers on the duty of a process server and the standard of proof in administrative cases. While the initial record showed a conflict of affidavits between supporting employees, making the evidence inconclusive, the newly submitted court orders constituted objective, contemporaneous official records. These orders, issued by different presiding judges over time, documented respondent’s persistent failure to serve court processes promptly despite repeated warnings. This evidence substantiated the charge of neglect of duty.
The Court emphasized that process servers have a ministerial duty to serve summonses, writs, and notices promptly and diligently. Unjustified delay or refusal to perform this function constitutes neglect of duty, which undermines the administration of justice by causing undue delays in case disposition. The official orders from the judges, being part of the court’s records, carried significant weight and provided the substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings. The Court held that respondent’s pattern of neglect, as officially documented, warranted administrative sanction. Consequently, respondent was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and inefficiency in the performance of official functions.