G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-11-2977; September 14, 2011 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3254-P)
Case Parties/Title: COL. MAURICIO A. SANTIAGO, JR. (Ret.), Complainant, vs. ARTHUR M. CAMANGYAN, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Toledo City, Respondent.

FACTS

1. Complainant Col. Mauricio A. Santiago, Jr. (Ret.) filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on September 17, 2009, charging respondent Arthur M. Camangyan, a Process Server of the RTC, Branch 29, Toledo City, with neglect of duty.
2. The charge stemmed from Civil Case No. T-2083 (Declaration of Nullity of Marriage), where complainant was the respondent. Judge Cesar O. Estrera issued a Notice setting the pre-trial conference and pre-trial for August 13, 2009.
3. Complainant alleged that respondent intentionally and maliciously failed to serve him a copy of the Notice, while his wife and her counsel were duly furnished copies. Complainant claimed he only learned of the hearing on August 7, 2009, after telephoning Judge Estrera, and asserted that respondent’s act was deliberate, malicious, and corrupt, potentially denying him justice and risking tampering or theft of his submitted evidence.
4. In his counter-affidavit, respondent denied the allegations as speculative and baseless. He explained that his failure to serve the Notice was not deliberate; he was instructed by Judge Estrera not to serve it because the Judge had already informed complainant of the hearing during their phone conversation. Respondent also stated his presence in the office was necessary due to an ongoing Supreme Court judicial audit related to Judge Estrera’s retirement. He countered that allegations of corruption and evidence tampering were unsubstantiated and that complainant’s Answer had been attached to the case records since April 14, 2009.
5. The OCA, in its Report dated May 2, 2011, found respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty and recommended a fine of One Thousand Pesos (₱1,000.00) with a stern warning.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Arthur M. Camangyan is administratively liable for neglect of duty for his failure to serve the Notice of Pre-Trial Conference and Pre-trial to complainant.

RULING

The Court found respondent not administratively liable for neglect of duty under the circumstances but issued an admonition and warning.
1. Duty of a Process Server: The Court emphasized that process servers have a vital role in the justice system and must perform their duties with dedication, efficiency, and utmost responsibility to ensure the expeditious service of court processes, consistent with the constitutional mandate of speedy and fair justice.
2. Evaluation of Respondent’s Conduct: The Court gave respondent the benefit of the doubt. It accepted his explanation that he failed to serve the Notice because Judge Estrera instructed him not to, as the Judge had already informed complainant of the hearing via telephone. Disregarding such an instruction could have constituted insubordination. The Court considered his failure as neither deliberate nor malicious.
3. Reminder on Diligence: The Court reminded respondent to perform his duties diligently for the orderly administration of justice. It noted that serving the notice officially is necessary to enable a proper return and to prevent potential denials from parties about being informed.
4. Disposition: The Court did not impose the penalty recommended by the OCA. Instead, respondent Arthur M. Camangyan was ADMONISHED for his failure to perform his duty and given a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely.