April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2419 : April 01, 2009] JOSEFINA A. MURILLO V. DANILO P. GARCIA, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 31:
[A.M. No. P-08-2419 : April 01, 2009]
JOSEFINA A. MURILLO V. DANILO P. GARCIA, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 31
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 1 April 2009
A.M. No. P-08-2419: JOSEFINA A. MURILLO v. DANILO P. GARCIA, Process Server, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31
On 3 March 2006, Josefina A. Murillo (complainant) filed a complaint-affidavit charging respondent Danilo P. Garcia (respondent), Process Server of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31 (RTC-Branch 31) with Grave Misconduct.
In her complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that she is the cousin of Eflyndo A. Marciano, the accused in a criminal case for violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. She narrated that sometime in the first week of October 2005, she and Soraya Marciano (Soraya), the wife of the accused, went to the RTC-Branch 31 to inquire about the bailbond for the provisional release of the accused. They met respondent who volunteered to help them. Respondent allegedly assured complainant that her cousin would be released from custody within three days upon payment of the amount of P22,000 as bailbond. On 14 October 2005, while in front of the office of the Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company located at DCI Bldg., N. Almeda Lopez St., Ermita, Manila, complainant handed to respondent the amount of P13,000 as initial payment. On 18 October 2005, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, respondent received from complainant and Soraya the amount of P4,500. Then, on 28 October 2005, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, respondent instructed complainant to go outside the latter's office where she gave the P4,500. Respondent did not give any receipt. Complainant waited for the release of her cousin but despite the payments which respondent received, accused remained in jail.
On the first week of February 2006, complainant demanded from respondent the return of the money which the latter received. Respondent wrote a note promising to return the money on 17 March 2006. Thus, complainant was compelled to file the instant administrative complaint.
In his Comment, respondent alleged that he immediately turned over the money to the bonding company but complainant was instructed to submit certain documents for the processing of the bailbond. Complainant was able to do so only on the first week of February 2006. Respondent averred that the delay in the release of accused from custody was attributed to the fact that the clearance of the bonding company to transact business was issued only during the latter part of February 2006. Respondent averred that complainant's cousin was released on 21 March 2006.
In its report and recommendation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that the acts of respondent of accepting money intended as payment for the bailbond of complainant's cousin and facilitating the procurement thereof constitute grave misconduct. Respondent had no business accepting money from parties involved in the proceedings in the court. The OCA found that there was misappropriation as it was only in March 2006, after complainant had demanded the return of the money, that complainant's cousin was released from custody. The OCA recommended that respondent be suspended from office for six months, this being his first offense.
We agree with and adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the OCA,
Respondent did not deny that he received from complainant money as bailbond for the provisional release of the accused. In fact, he even wrote a note in his handwriting promising to return the P22,000 on 17 March 2006. However, respondent is a process server whose duty is to serve court processes such as subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, summons, court order and notices; prepare and submit returns of service of court processes; monitor messages and deliver court mail matters received and dispatched by him; and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him.[1] There is nothing that authorizes a process server to collect or receive any amount of money from any party or litigant or the accused. Clearly, respondent's act of receiving money from a party or litigant constitutes grave misconduct in office. It is this kind of gross misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount involved, on the part of those charged with administering and rendering justice speedily, which erodes the respect for law and the courts.[2] Grave misconduct is a grave offense which carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service even if a first offense.[3] Dismissal carries with it the forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.[4] Considering that this is respondent's first offense, we agree with the recommended penalty of the OCA of suspension for six months.
A process server should be fully cognizant not only of the nature and responsibilities of his task but also of their impact in the speedy administration of justice.[5] A process server, being a judicial employee, is expected to act with prudence, restraint,courtesy and dignity. Respondent must remember the oft-quoted reminder to all who work in the judiciary that the conduct of everyone charged with the administration of justice - from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk - should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the well-guarded image of the judiciary. Being among those at the frontlines of our judicial machinery, process servers are in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[6]
The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of all its employees. It is the imperative duty of every employee in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice. Thus, every employee of the court should be an exemplar of integrity, uprightness and honesty. The Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial employees which tends to or actually diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[7]
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Danilo P. Garcia, Process Server, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct. We SUSPEND him for SIX (6) MONTHS, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona and Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Members, and Honorable Justice Arturo D. Brion, Additional Member [per S.O. No. 570], First Division, this 1st day of April, 2009.
A.M. No. P-08-2419: JOSEFINA A. MURILLO v. DANILO P. GARCIA, Process Server, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31
On 3 March 2006, Josefina A. Murillo (complainant) filed a complaint-affidavit charging respondent Danilo P. Garcia (respondent), Process Server of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31 (RTC-Branch 31) with Grave Misconduct.
In her complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that she is the cousin of Eflyndo A. Marciano, the accused in a criminal case for violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. She narrated that sometime in the first week of October 2005, she and Soraya Marciano (Soraya), the wife of the accused, went to the RTC-Branch 31 to inquire about the bailbond for the provisional release of the accused. They met respondent who volunteered to help them. Respondent allegedly assured complainant that her cousin would be released from custody within three days upon payment of the amount of P22,000 as bailbond. On 14 October 2005, while in front of the office of the Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company located at DCI Bldg., N. Almeda Lopez St., Ermita, Manila, complainant handed to respondent the amount of P13,000 as initial payment. On 18 October 2005, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, respondent received from complainant and Soraya the amount of P4,500. Then, on 28 October 2005, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, respondent instructed complainant to go outside the latter's office where she gave the P4,500. Respondent did not give any receipt. Complainant waited for the release of her cousin but despite the payments which respondent received, accused remained in jail.
On the first week of February 2006, complainant demanded from respondent the return of the money which the latter received. Respondent wrote a note promising to return the money on 17 March 2006. Thus, complainant was compelled to file the instant administrative complaint.
In his Comment, respondent alleged that he immediately turned over the money to the bonding company but complainant was instructed to submit certain documents for the processing of the bailbond. Complainant was able to do so only on the first week of February 2006. Respondent averred that the delay in the release of accused from custody was attributed to the fact that the clearance of the bonding company to transact business was issued only during the latter part of February 2006. Respondent averred that complainant's cousin was released on 21 March 2006.
In its report and recommendation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that the acts of respondent of accepting money intended as payment for the bailbond of complainant's cousin and facilitating the procurement thereof constitute grave misconduct. Respondent had no business accepting money from parties involved in the proceedings in the court. The OCA found that there was misappropriation as it was only in March 2006, after complainant had demanded the return of the money, that complainant's cousin was released from custody. The OCA recommended that respondent be suspended from office for six months, this being his first offense.
We agree with and adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the OCA,
Respondent did not deny that he received from complainant money as bailbond for the provisional release of the accused. In fact, he even wrote a note in his handwriting promising to return the P22,000 on 17 March 2006. However, respondent is a process server whose duty is to serve court processes such as subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, summons, court order and notices; prepare and submit returns of service of court processes; monitor messages and deliver court mail matters received and dispatched by him; and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him.[1] There is nothing that authorizes a process server to collect or receive any amount of money from any party or litigant or the accused. Clearly, respondent's act of receiving money from a party or litigant constitutes grave misconduct in office. It is this kind of gross misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount involved, on the part of those charged with administering and rendering justice speedily, which erodes the respect for law and the courts.[2] Grave misconduct is a grave offense which carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service even if a first offense.[3] Dismissal carries with it the forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.[4] Considering that this is respondent's first offense, we agree with the recommended penalty of the OCA of suspension for six months.
A process server should be fully cognizant not only of the nature and responsibilities of his task but also of their impact in the speedy administration of justice.[5] A process server, being a judicial employee, is expected to act with prudence, restraint,courtesy and dignity. Respondent must remember the oft-quoted reminder to all who work in the judiciary that the conduct of everyone charged with the administration of justice - from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk - should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the well-guarded image of the judiciary. Being among those at the frontlines of our judicial machinery, process servers are in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[6]
The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of all its employees. It is the imperative duty of every employee in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice. Thus, every employee of the court should be an exemplar of integrity, uprightness and honesty. The Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial employees which tends to or actually diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[7]
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Danilo P. Garcia, Process Server, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct. We SUSPEND him for SIX (6) MONTHS, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona and Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Members, and Honorable Justice Arturo D. Brion, Additional Member [per S.O. No. 570], First Division, this 1st day of April, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] The Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, Vol. I, p. 203; Rodriguez v. Eugenio, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2216, 20 April 2007, 521 SCRA 489; Reyes v. Pablico, A.M. No. P-06-2109, 27 November 2006,508 SCRA 146.
[2] Id.
[3] Sec. 52 (A) (3), Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[4] Sec. 58, Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[5] Ulat-Marrero v. Torio, Jr., 461 Phil. 654 (2003).
[6] Cabanatan v. Molina, 421 Phil. 664 (2001).
[7] Chiong v. Baloloy, AM. No. P-01-1523, 27 October 2006, 505 SCRA528.
