Chan v. Castillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Victor Chan filed an administrative complaint against respondent Isabelo P. Castillo, Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan. The complaint alleged failure to serve and make a return of the summons in Civil Case No. 10175, an action instituted by the complainant against Atty. Carlos Sagucio before the RTC, Branch 16, Laoag City. Procedural History: The summons was mailed to the sheriff of RTC, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, for service on Atty. Sagucio. The summons was received in Sanchez Mira around the third week of December 1992 and came into the possession of the respondent. After 15 months, the case had not been set for pre-trial. The complainant inquired about the service of summons and was informed that it was mailed with the corresponding sheriff's fee, but the return card had not been received, nor had the sheriff submitted his return. The complainant filed the instant complaint on May 3, 1994, alleging connivance between the respondent and Atty. Sagucio to avoid service. The Petition: The complainant sought disciplinary action against the respondent for his failure to perform his duties.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff was guilty of gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to serve and make a return of the summons. Whether the respondent's excuses for his failure to serve the summons were tenable.
Ruling
The respondent Deputy Sheriff was found guilty of gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He was fined P5,000.00, payable within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision, with a warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The respondent's behavior constitutes gross negligence to the great prejudice of the orderly administration of justice. He was utterly remiss in the performance of his ministerial duty of serving the summons. The failure to serve the summons within a reasonable time and to submit a return thereof is a clear dereliction of duty. Every officer or employee in the Judiciary is duty-bound to obey the orders and processes of the court without the least delay and to exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties. The respondent's inaction for an extended period, despite the importance of timely service of process, directly impacts the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system. His failure to act promptly undermines the very purpose of the summons, which is to notify the defendant and enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over him. On the tenability of the respondent's excuses: The respondent's excuses that Atty. Sagucio was always out of town and later went abroad are not tenable. The law provides for substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. This rule allows service by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's dwelling house or residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or by leaving the copies at the defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. Furthermore, Section 6 of the same Rule mandates the server to make a return. In both instances, the respondent neglected to observe these fundamental rules. His claim of losing interest in inquiring about Atty. Sagucio's return and subsequently losing the summons during office repairs are weak justifications that do not absolve him from his responsibility. The loss of the summons itself, if true, points to further negligence in safeguarding court processes.
Main Doctrine
A deputy sheriff is grossly negligent and commits conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to serve summons within a reasonable time and to make a return thereof, especially when substituted service was available and the excuse of the defendant being out of town is not tenable.