A.M. No. P-10, December 28, 1973
Martiniano O. de la Cruz, complainant, vs. The Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Martiniano O. de la Cruz, the plaintiff in an ejectment case, filed a complaint for “Gross Misconduct, Neglect of Duty and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service” against Provincial Sheriff Atty. Flor F. Resurreccion. The charge stemmed from an alleged delay in serving summons. Complainant had paid the sheriff’s fees and delivered the summons and complaint to Deputy Sheriff Iral on February 14, 1973. The summons required the defendants to answer within a specific period and set the initial hearing for February 27, 1973. However, on that date, a defendant appeared and moved for postponement, claiming service was only effected on February 23, leaving their answer period unexpired. The municipal judge granted the postponement.
Respondent Provincial Sheriff explained that upon receipt, the documents were duly recorded and assigned to Deputy Sheriff Magtoto for service. Magtoto accomplished service on the defendants on February 20, 1973, not February 23 as claimed by the defendant. The sheriff’s return was prepared but was only sent by registered mail to the clerk of court on February 26, 1973, arriving after the February 27 hearing. Consequently, the municipal judge had no timely return on record to contradict the defendant’s misrepresentation, leading to the postponement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Provincial Sheriff is administratively liable for gross misconduct or neglect of duty due to the delayed return of service of summons which caused a postponement in the ejectment case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated respondent Provincial Sheriff of the charge of gross misconduct or neglect of duty. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Court found no direct personal negligence or gross misconduct attributable to the respondent sheriff. The explanation established that the summons was actually served promptly on February 20, well within the period for the defendants to answer before the original hearing date. The postponement was directly caused by the defendant’s false statement to the court, not by a failure to serve the summons.
Second, while the respondent was exonerated from the severe charge, the Court identified a procedural lapse warranting an admonition. The duty of a process-server encompasses not only prompt service but also the prompt filing of the return of service. The delay in sending the return by registered mail until February 26 meant it was not available to the court on the hearing date. This failure to make a prompt return impeded the efficient administration of justice, as the court was deprived of official documentation that would have allowed it to deny the postponement. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that such inaction can obstruct judicial processes. Therefore, while disciplinary action was not merited, the respondent was admonished to exercise stricter supervision to ensure timely returns of service in the future.