Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > September 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-06-2163 [Formerly A.M. No. 06-3-175-RTC] : September 05, 2007] LORNA TASCUAL V. MAXIMIANO C. CORSINO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, TUGUEGARAO CITY :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 5 September 2007:

A.M. No. P-06-2163 [Formerly A.M. No. 06-3-175-RTC] - LORNA TASCUAL v. MAXIMIANO C. CORSINO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City

By Letter-Complaint dated November 21, 2005^[1] addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Lorna Pascual (complainant) charged Maximiano^[2] C. Corsino, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, with gross inefficiency, malfeasance, and gross neglect of duty arising from his failure to serve summons to the defendant in Civil Case No. 6578, "Naejel Pascual and Lorna Pascual v. Joseph Pe�aflor," for Recognition and Support Pendente Lite.

It appears that the Branch Clerk of Court of the Tuguegarao RTC, Branch 4 issued on July 1, 2005 summons for the defendant which was received for service on July 2, 2005 by respondent.^[3] As of the date of the writing of the letter-complaint on November 21, 2005 or more than four (4) months from receipt by respondent of the summons for service, respondent had not made a return thereof.^[4]

In his Comment^[5] to the administrative complaint, respondent claimed that he deferred serving the summons upon the defendant on noticing that the copy of herein complainant's petition which was attached to the summons did not bear the annexes referred to therein; and that despite his advice to complainant when she called up sometime in August 2005 for her to submit the annexes to the petition without which he could not serve the summons, complainant did not submit the same despite her undertaking.

In its March 6, 2006 Report,^[6] the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), passing on the merits of the administrative complaint, came up with the following:

EVALUATION: The complaint should be given due course.

Respondent explains that the complainant filed two (2) sets of the petition but only one had a set of the annexes; that the petition attached to the summons to be served lacked the annexes; and service was deferred pending the complainant's submission of a second set of annexes.

Respondent's explanation is unmeritorious.

As certified to by the Clerk of Court summons in Civil Case No. 6578 was issued on July 1, 2005 and on that day [sic] was "delivered" to respondent for his service on the defendant. As late as November 8, 2005 when the Clerk of Court made the certification, there was no "return of summons yet." In fact, respondent admits that he never served the summons because, allegedly, herein complainant, and the complainant in the civil case as well, did not submit the annexes to the complaint that had to be attached to the summons.

He should have done either of two (2) things:

A. He should have served upon defendant the summons but with the notation that the petition lacked attachments because the petition failed to submit the required number of annexes.

x x x x

. . . [I]t is clear that the rules leave no room for the officer tasked to serve the summons to exercise discretion as to whether or not to proceed with the service of summons. [Corollary], he is not vested with authority to look into the substance or completeness of the court processes he is supposed to serve. Service of summons is a pure ministerial duty.

B) Assuming arguendo that serving the summons with incomplete attachment would amount to negligence on his part, as what he claimed to believe, he should have immediately taken the necessary steps to facilitate the completion of the lacking attachments. Thus, following the essence of the aforequoted rules to forestall any unreasonable delay in the service of court processes, he should have returned the summons to the clerk of court stating the reason for the failure of the service and served a copy thereof to the petitioner [herein complainant]. This way, the petitioner would have been timely and properly informed of the deficiencies of her petition. After all, the best evidence to prove that respondent was not remiss in his duties is the mandatory filing of a return/ report with the court. It may be worthy to note that based on his narration of the events, respondent sheriff informed the petitioner of the deficiencies in her petition only when the petitioner called. Thus, were it not for the complainant's initiative to follow up the status of her petition, she would not have known that she had to complete the attachments.

The negligence on the part of the [complainant] when she did not submit the lacking attachment after her phone conversation with the respondent does not offset the negligence of the respondent sheriff when he did not do any positive act to facilitate the service of the summons. Such is merely mitigated.

x x x x

In the instant case, it is not merely the duty of filing a report but the actual service of a court process which the respondent sheriff failed to carry out. Taking into consideration the fact that he did not immediately take the necessary steps to facilitate the completion of the lacking attachments, his alleged belief that serving the summons with incomplete attachment would amount to negligence on his part is of no moment.^[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The OCA thus recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of P1,000 for simple neglect of duty.^[8]

This Court finds the evaluation made by the OCA well-taken.

A sheriff has the primary responsibility of ensuring the speedy and efficient service of court processes and order.^[9] The duty to serve summons being ministerial, any officer tasked to carry it out has no discretion to defer service hereof.^[10] Respondent's deferment of the service of summons and failure make a report thereon constituted a clear neglect of duty.

The recommended fine in the amount of P1,000 is too light, however, simple neglect of duty being penalized, under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,^[11] with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense.

Under the circumstances, this Court finds a fine in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) reasonable.^[12]

WHEREFORE, respondent Maximiano C. Corsino, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, is found guilty of simple neglect of duty and is FINED in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). And he is WARNED that a repetition of the same or other infraction will be dealt with more severely. (Velasco, Jr., J., no part)

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 8-10.

^[2] He is named Maximiano in the letter-complaint.

^[3] Respondent�s Comment, rollo, p. 14.

^[4] Rollo, p. 8.

^[5] Id. at 14-17.

^[6] Id. at 1-5.

^[7] Id. at 3-5

^[8] Id. at 5.

^[9] Atty. Talion v. Ayupan, 425 Phil. 41, 50 (2002)

^[10] Vide Musni v. Morales, 373 Phil. 703, 709 (1999).

^[11] Section 52, B (1), Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936 dated August 31, 1999.

^[12] Vide Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Balubar, A.M., No. P-04-1767, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 168, where the therein sheriff was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and was fined in the amount of P2,000.