A.M. No. P-07-2410; June 18, 2010
MARIE DINAH TOLENTINO-FUENTES, Complainant, vs. MICHAEL PATRICK A. GALINDEZ, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Davao City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Marie Dinah Tolentino-Fuentes filed an administrative complaint against respondent Michael Patrick Galindez, a process server at the RTC, Branch 33, Davao City, for simple neglect of duty. The complaint detailed multiple instances across several cases where court notices and orders were served with significant delay, causing prejudice to the complainant and her clients. In Criminal Case No. 55248-04, a notice canceling a hearing was received only after the scheduled date, causing the complainant and her client to incur unnecessary expenses. Similar delays occurred in Civil Case Nos. 31148-2005, 22989-94, and 29418-2002, where notices of hearing cancellations or settings were received late, resulting in wasted appearances, financial costs, and, in one instance, a client being unable to participate in evidence presentation and cross-examination, compelling a motion for reconsideration on due process grounds.
In his comment, respondent Galindez admitted the accusations but offered excuses, including a heavy workload, lack of court vehicle, and personal financial difficulties. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found him guilty of inefficiency and incompetence and recommended a six-month and one-day suspension. The parties subsequently submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Michael Patrick A. Galindez is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Galindez guilty of simple neglect of duty. The legal logic centers on the vital role of a process server in the judicial system, whose primary duty is to serve court notices with utmost care to ensure parties are properly informed. The Court, citing Atty. Dajao v. Lluch, emphasized that this duty requires careful examination and timely service of all notices. Respondent’s repeated failures, as documented across multiple cases, constituted a disregard of this essential responsibility due to carelessness or indifference.
The Court rejected respondent’s justifications. Following precedent in Seangio v. Parce, a heavy workload is not a compelling excuse to justify negligent performance, as such a defense would prejudice public service. Similarly, citing Rodrigo-Ebron v. Adolfo, financial difficulty is a personal problem that does not excuse official duty. Simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. Considering no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the Court imposed the medium penalty of a three-month suspension without pay, with a stern warning against repetition. This penalty aligns with jurisprudence, such as Collado-Lacorte v. Rabena, where process servers were similarly sanctioned for failure to properly serve notices.