De la Cruz v. Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Martiniano O. de la Cruz filed a complaint against the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan for alleged "Gross Misconduct, Neglect of Duty and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service." Complainant was the plaintiff in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 246) and had given the summons and complaint to Deputy Sheriff Iral on February 14, 1973, after paying the sheriff's fees. The summons required defendants to answer within two to five days and set the hearing for February 27, 1973. Procedural History: On February 27, 1973, a defendant appeared and moved for cancellation of the hearing, claiming summons was served only on February 23, 1973, and their period to answer would expire on February 28, 1973. The Municipal Judge postponed the hearing to March 8, 1973. Complainant alleged that the delay in service caused this postponement. The Petition: The complaint was forwarded to the Supreme Court, charging the Provincial Sheriff with misconduct due to the alleged delay in service of summons, which resulted in the postponement of the ejectment case hearing. Respondent Sheriff explained that Deputy Sheriff Magtoto was assigned to serve the documents, and service was accomplished on February 20, 1973, with the return sent by registered mail on February 26, 1973.
Issue(s)
Whether the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan committed gross misconduct, neglect of duty, or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service due to the alleged delay in the service of summons. Whether the delay in the return of service impeded the administration of justice.
Ruling
The complaint is dismissed and the respondent is exonerated of the charge. However, the respondent is admonished to exercise closer and stricter supervision over the process servers under him to avoid a repetition of delayed returns of service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Gross Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: The Court found that the respondent Provincial Sheriff was not directly responsible for the service of the summons, as Deputy Sheriff Magtoto was assigned for that purpose. The explanation provided by the respondent indicated that the summons and complaint were served on the defendants on February 20, 1973, not February 23, 1973, as claimed by one of the defendants. This service date meant that the defendants had until February 25, 1973, to answer, and the hearing scheduled for February 27, 1973, could have proceeded. The Court determined that it was the defendant Atanacia Banadera Andrade who unjustifiably caused the delay by misrepresenting the service date to the Municipal Judge. Therefore, the actions did not constitute gross misconduct or negligence sufficient for disciplinary action against the respondent Sheriff or his deputy. On the issue of the delay in the return of service and its impact on the administration of justice: While the Sheriff was exonerated from direct misconduct, the Court noted that there was no prompt return of service made to the municipal court. Despite the service being accomplished on February 20, 1973, the return of service was only sent by registered mail on February 26, 1973, the day before the scheduled hearing. This delay meant that when the case was called, there was no return of service on record to counter the defendant's assertion of late service. The Court emphasized that delays of this nature impede the orderly, efficient, and speedy administration of justice. It stressed that the duty to serve processes promptly carries an equally important duty to make a return of service within a reasonable time to guide the court. The Court cited the case of Acting Collector of Customs, Pacis, et al. vs. Hon. Averia, et al. to illustrate how inaction and delayed returns can obstruct court processes and cause setbacks in justice.
Main Doctrine
While a Sheriff may not be directly responsible for the delay in service of summons, he is accountable for the prompt return of service to guide the court in the disposition of cases. Failure to do so impedes the administration of justice. However, disciplinary action may not be warranted if the delay is not gross and the Sheriff exercises closer supervision.