A.M. No. P-11-2967. February 13, 2013.
Erlinda C. Mendoza, Complainant, vs. Pedro S. Esguerra, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Erlinda C. Mendoza was the plaintiff in a civil case dismissed by the RTC due to her repeated non-appearance. She sought reconsideration, explaining she received the notice for the hearing only after the scheduled date. Her inquiry revealed that respondent Pedro S. Esguerra, the court’s process server, caused the delay. The first notice (Order dated July 9, 2008) was given to him on July 9 but mailed only on August 11, 2008. A second copy was endorsed on August 6 but mailed on August 22, 2008, after the hearing. A subsequent Notice of Dismissal (dated August 21, 2008) was also mailed by the respondent only on September 19, 2008.
In his defense, the respondent claimed the first Order was handed to him by the Civil Docket Clerk only on August 8, 2008 (a Friday), hence he mailed it on the next working day, August 11. He argued the omission was attributable to the Docket Clerk. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Nelson A. Tribiana, who found the respondent’s claims self-serving and unsubstantiated.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Pedro S. Esguerra is administratively liable for the delays in mailing court notices.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the investigating judge. The legal logic centers on the respondent’s failure to exercise the diligence required of his office. As a process server, his duty is to serve court processes promptly and with utmost care to ensure parties receive timely notice. His excuse that the Docket Clerk delayed handing him the notice is unacceptable. Even assuming this was true, his proper course of action upon receiving a notice so close to the hearing date was not to mail it, knowing it would arrive late, but to effect personal service to the parties to comply with the court’s directive for timely notice. His failure to do so demonstrates carelessness and indifference.
Furthermore, a pattern of delay was established, including a 25-day delay in mailing the Notice of Dismissal. This constitutes simple neglect, defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task, signifying disregard of duty from carelessness. The Court emphasized that all court personnel must perform duties with responsibility and efficiency, as public office is a public trust. To prevent disruption of public service, a fine equivalent to three months’ salary was imposed instead of suspension, with a stern warning against repetition.