A.M. No. P-06-2241. July 10, 2012.
JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-JOAQUIN, Complainant, vs. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, Respondent.

FACTS

Judge Pelagia Dalmacio-Joaquin filed an administrative complaint against Process Server Nicomedes Dela Cruz for Conduct Unbecoming of Court Personnel and Dishonesty. The complainant alleged that Dela Cruz submitted a belated return of service for an order in one criminal case, receiving it in December 2005 but serving it only in March 2006. More seriously, she accused him of submitting false returns of service in four other criminal cases. In these returns, Dela Cruz reported that the accused parties were no longer residing at their given addresses. However, during court proceedings, the accused persons themselves, or complainants, manifested in open court that they still resided at those locations, directly contradicting his reports.
In his defense, Dela Cruz denied any deliberate delay or falsification. He explained that for the allegedly false returns, he relied on information from local contacts, such as a purok leader and a neighbor, who informed him the accused had moved or that houses were demolished. He also claimed the complaint was a form of harassment. Notably, Dela Cruz failed to submit any explanation in response to formal show-cause orders from the judge regarding these discrepancies. The case was referred for investigation, which confirmed the delayed service and the inaccuracy of the returns, though it noted the false entries were not deliberately made.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nicomedes Dela Cruz is administratively liable for the charges of Dishonesty and Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee based on his submission of a belated and inaccurate returns of service.

RULING

Yes, but the offense is mitigated from Dishonesty to Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court emphasized that court processes must be served with utmost care, and process servers have a duty to ensure returns of service are accurate and truthful, as these are crucial for the court’s jurisdiction and the parties’ right to due process. The investigation established that Dela Cruz submitted a return for an order three months late and filed several returns containing false information regarding the whereabouts of the accused.
However, the Court distinguished between deliberate falsification and neglect. Dishonesty requires a deliberate intent to deceive. The evidence showed Dela Cruz did not fabricate information out of malice but relied on unverified second-hand accounts from bystanders, failing to exercise the diligence required of his position. This failure constitutes Simple Neglect of Duty, defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, signifying a disregard of duty due to carelessness or indifference. His subsequent failure to comply with the judge’s show-cause orders compounded this neglect.
Considering his resignation from service in 2008, the Court could no longer impose suspension. Instead, he was found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The penalty was converted to a financial sanction: the forfeiture of his salaries for three months, to be deducted from any retirement or other benefits he may be entitled to receive.