ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 98-530-P. October 10, 2000]

ALEJANDRIA PERIA-MACENAS, vs. GREGORIO A. VILLENA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 10 2000.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 98-530-P (Alejandria Peria-Macenas, vs. Gregorio A. Vitlena, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino.)

Respondent Gregorio A. Villena was the process server of Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court of Quirino. He was charged with Obstruction of Justice and Violation of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713.

Alejandra Peria-Macenas instituted a civil case which was raffled on September 29, 1997 to Branch 31, RTC Quirino. Summons issued for service on defendant Rosita T. Dagdag, but service thereof was effected only on January 9, 1998. Such delay, complainant maintains, constituted obstruction of justice and manifest denigration of the policy of this Court on speedy disposition of cases. Moreover, respondent sheriff is a godson of defendant Rosita Dagdag, thus violating Section 3,-par. 3 of R.A. 3019, complainant concluded.

In his Comment, respondent sheriff denied that he intentionally delayed the service of subject summons. He pointed out that service of said summons was to be done by Deputy Sheriff Teodorico Masangcay but was turned over to him sometime in December 1997, when Deputy Sheriff Masangcay became ill. He served the summons only on January 9, 1998 because he was under treatment for diabetes and the defendant's residence in Progreso, Aglipay, Quirino was very far. He denied being a godson of defendant Dagdag.

Respondent sheriff died in a vehicular accident on January 3, 2000.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the case be decided despite the untimely demise of respondent, and that a fine of P1,000.00 be imposed for the delay in the service of the summons in question.

It is decisively clear that the delay of service of the summons involved was unintentional What is more, respondent performed his duties well although he was suffering from non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. ¹ Comment, Rollo, p. 15.

WHEREFORE, respondent process server is hereby exonerated of the charge of obstruction of justice, and the case is considered closed and terminated.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE