Macaspac vs. Flores

A process server who relies solely on unverified information from a single informant to justify non-service of a subpoena, without attempting substituted service or otherwise diligently ascertaining the witness's whereabouts, is guilty of simple neglect of duty, classified as a less grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Ricardo C. Flores served as Process Server at RTC Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan. Complainant Rommel N. Macaspac was a police officer previously assigned at the PRO 3 Police Station in Orani, Bataan, who had arrested one Nova Catapang for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), giving rise to Criminal Case Nos. 9038 and 9039 raffled to RTC Branch 3. As the arresting officer, Macaspac was bound to testify as a prosecution witness, and his appearance at scheduled hearings depended on proper service of subpoena by the court's process server. The administrative complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, which investigated the matter and made findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court.

On January 14, 2003, PO1 Rommel N. Macaspac, then assigned at the PRO 3 Police Station in Orani, Bataan, apprehended Nova Catapang for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Informations were filed, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 9038 and 9039, and raffled to RTC Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan, where respondent Ricardo C. Flores served as Process Server. Knowing he was bound to testify as the arresting officer, Macaspac awaited notice of hearing, but none arrived before his reassignment on December 19, 2003.

On July 22, 2004, Macaspac learned that the criminal cases had been dismissed by the court per an Order dated June 30, 2004, which stated that the prosecution "went caput" because of the failure of the purported arresting officer to appear at scheduled hearings. Upon inquiry with RTC Branch 3, Macaspac was informed that Flores had made a report on the return of the notice of hearing at the back page of a subpoena dated October 22, 2003, certifying that he had not served a copy of the subpoena on Macaspac on November 18, 2003 because Macaspac was "now assigned at WPD Station 2, Tondo, Manila according to SPO3 Antonio Capuli of the PNP, Orani, Bataan." Macaspac contended that this report was false, as he was not reassigned to another station at that time and was in fact the desk officer-on-duty from November 17 to 19, 2003 at the same Orani police station where the subpoena was allegedly served.

Flores countered that he simply made a candid and truthful statement of fact. He asserted that he first sought Macaspac at the police station and, finding him unavailable, inquired from his colleagues, receiving advice from SPO3 Capuli that Macaspac had been reassigned to Tondo. Flores argued he could not have gone beyond Capuli's advice, and that the situation would have been different had Macaspac questioned the existence of SPO3 Capuli, which Macaspac did not. As to Macaspac's allegation of negligence in other cases, Flores argued the accusation deserved scant regard for want of specific evidence.

Documentary evidence substantiated that on November 18, 2003 — the day Flores purportedly tried to serve the subpoena — Macaspac was actually still assigned as desk officer at the PRO 3 Police Station in Orani, Bataan, having been reassigned to the NCRPO only on December 11, 2003. The OCA found that Flores's attempt to serve the subpoena was perfunctory and that his failure to verify the information given by SPO3 Capuli constituted neglect of duty that caused the dismissal of the criminal cases. The OCA recommended a fine of ₱3,000, but the Supreme Court, while agreeing with the finding of negligence, modified the penalty to suspension for three months without pay, classifying the offense as simple neglect of duty under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

• Falsity of Report: Complainant alleged that respondent perjured in his report because complainant was not reassigned to another station on November 18, 2003, and was in fact the desk officer-on-duty from November 17 to 19, 2003 at the same Orani police station where the subpoena was allegedly served.
• Grave Neglect of Duty: Complainant argued that respondent's act of making a report without further inquiry as to its truth constituted grave neglect of his duties as a process server, detrimental to the prosecution of the case and the government's campaign against illegal drugs.
• Pattern of Negligence: Complainant alleged that respondent's act was not isolated, asserting that most cases handled by municipal police officers of Orani, Bataan were dismissed because of respondent's reports that subpoenas were served when in fact they were never served or respondent never tried to serve them by going to the police station.
• Irregular Service: In his Reply, complainant maintained that respondent merely went through the process of serving a subpoena without exerting much effort to locate him, and suspected that respondent's service was tainted with irregularity, giving doubts as to his integrity.

• Truthful Report: Respondent countered that he should not be faulted for making a report that is candid and truthful, asserting he simply made a statement of fact, no more and no less.
• Reliance on Informant's Advice: Respondent maintained that he could not have gone beyond the advice of SPO3 Capuli, which was accorded truth only after complainant was found unavailable; he first sought complainant and only after finding him nowhere did he inquire from colleagues.
• Failure to Challenge Capuli's Identity: Respondent argued that the situation would have been different had complainant questioned the existence of SPO3 Capuli, which complainant did not.
• Unsubstantiated Accusations: Respondent argued that complainant's allegation of negligence in other cases deserved scant regard for want of specific evidence linking him to the supposed acts.

• Neglect of Duty: Whether respondent's failure to serve the subpoena on complainant, based on unverified information from a single informant and without attempt at substituted service, constitutes administrative liability for neglect of duty.
• Classification of Offense: Whether the offense constitutes simple neglect of duty or serious neglect of duty, and what penalty applies under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

• Neglect of Duty: Yes. Respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to diligently ascertain the whereabouts of complainant and for not attempting substituted service of the subpoena after personal service proved frustrated.
• Classification of Offense: Simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense under Section 52(B)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, carrying the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Respondent was suspended for three months without pay, the OCA's recommended fine of ₱3,000 having been found inapplicable under the prevailing Rules.

• Neglect of Duty: Documentary evidence confirmed that on November 18, 2003, complainant was still assigned as desk officer at the PRO 3 Police Station in Orani, Bataan, having been reassigned to NCRPO only on December 11, 2003. Either respondent deliberately made a false report or he tried to serve the subpoena but abandoned the effort upon relying on SPO3 Capuli's representation. Since fraud or malice could not be ascribed absent clear and convincing evidence — and complainant himself failed to disprove Capuli's identity or present his testimony — the Court adopted the latter scenario. Nevertheless, respondent did not diligently exert his best effort to ascertain complainant's true whereabouts, depending on a lone informant without double-checking the data. Under Section 6, Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Court, service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as personal or substituted service of summons under Rule 14. After respondent's frustrated attempt at personal service, he took no further action; he neither attested in his report nor averred in his Comment that he attempted substituted service by leaving a copy with a responsible person at complainant's dwelling or office. Respondent had ample time to properly serve the subpoena, as complainant was required to appear only on February 12, 2004, but chose to be apathetic. His lackadaisical deportment demonstrated inefficiency and incompetence, falling short of the prudence, caution, and attention expected of process servers as public servants entrusted with giving flesh to constitutional rights of due process and speedy disposition of cases.

• Classification of Offense: The OCA recommended a fine of ₱3,000 conformably with the ruling in Musni vs. Morales, but that penalty did not correspond to the range provided under Section 52(B)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which took effect four days after the promulgation of Musni. Under the prevailing Rules, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense carrying suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Simple neglect of duty signifies the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, and does not necessarily include willful neglect or intentional official wrongdoing. Considering the adverse effect of respondent's negligence on the Republic's efforts to curb the proliferation of illegal drugs, the Court imposed suspension for three months without pay.

• Simple Neglect of Duty — The failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. The term does not necessarily include willful neglect or intentional official wrongdoing. The Court applied this definition to respondent's perfunctory attempt at serving a subpoena, classifying his conduct as simple rather than serious neglect of duty because fraud or malice could not be ascribed absent clear and convincing evidence.

• Service of Subpoena Mode — Under Section 6, Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Court, service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as personal or substituted service of summons under Rule 14. Personal service requires handing a copy to the defendant in person, or tendering it if refused. Substituted service requires, for justifiable causes, leaving copies at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or at the defendant's office with a competent person in charge thereof. The Court held that respondent's failure to attempt substituted service after frustrated personal service constituted non-compliance with the Rules.

• Standard of Diligence for Process Servers — Process servers must exercise the prudence, caution, and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs, and must be fully cognizant of the nature and responsibilities of their tasks and their impact on the constitutional rights of litigants to due process and speedy disposition of cases. The Court found respondent fell short of this standard by relying on a lone informant without verification.

• "Respondent's lackadaisical deportment only shows his inefficiency and incompetence to perform the functions of his office. As public servants, process servers like respondent must be constantly aware that they are bound by virtue of their office to exercise the prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs." — This passage articulates the standard of diligence expected of court process servers and forms part of the ratio decidendi for finding respondent administratively liable.

• "In falling short of his mandate, respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which signifies the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference." — This is the canonical formulation of simple neglect of duty as applied in this case, defining the offense and distinguishing it from willful neglect or intentional wrongdoing.

• "Since fraud or malice cannot be ascribed in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to prove the same, the Court is inclined to regard the latter scenario as logical especially since complainant himself failed to disprove the identity of SPO3 Capuli or present his testimony to belie respondent's allegation of having talked to him." — This passage explains the Court's refusal to find serious neglect or dishonesty, limiting the finding to simple neglect of duty based on the evidentiary standard applied.

• Musni vs. Morales, 373 Phil. 703 (1999) — Previously applied by the OCA to justify a fine of ₱3,000 for neglect of duty. The Court distinguished this case, noting that the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service took effect four days after Musni was promulgated, and that the penalty under the prevailing Rules for simple neglect of duty is suspension, not a fine.

• Exec. Judge Ulat-Marrero vs. Torio, Jr., 461 Phil. 654 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that process servers must exercise prudence, caution, and attention in the management of their affairs, and for the definition of simple neglect of duty as not necessarily including willful neglect or intentional official wrongdoing.

• Rodrigo-Ebron vs. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-06-2231, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 286 — Cited as authority for the standard of diligence expected of process servers and for the definition of simple neglect of duty.

• Section 6, Rule 21, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as personal or substituted service of summons. The Court applied this provision to hold that respondent was required to attempt substituted service after personal service proved frustrated, and his failure to do so constituted non-compliance with the Rules.

• Section 6, Rule 14, Revised Rules of Court — Governs personal service of summons, requiring that whenever practicable, the summons be served by handing a copy to the defendant in person or by tendering it if refused. Incorporated by reference through Rule 21 as the standard for personal service of subpoenas.

• Section 7, Rule 14, Revised Rules of Court — Governs substituted service of summons, allowing service by leaving copies at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion, or at the defendant's office with a competent person in charge. Incorporated by reference through Rule 21 as the standard for substituted service of subpoenas.

• Section 52(B)(1), Rule IV, Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense carrying the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. The Court applied this provision to impose a three-month suspension, modifying the OCA's recommended fine.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, and Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro concurred with the decision. No separate concurring opinions were noted.