Case Digest: ATTY.LAGUIO, Jr. v. AMANTE-CASICAS

ATTY. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, Jr. v. MILA AMANTE-CASICAS

506 SCRA 705 (2006)

The failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference is guilty of simple neglect.

Atty. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. filed a complaint for sum of money and deposited P1,000 for service of summons fee. The case was filed before the Pasig Metropolitan Trial Court. Two weeks later, he inquired whether summons had been served. Mila Amante-Casicas replied in the negative allegedly because no service fee had been paid. When the official receipt of payment of the fee was shown to her, Casicas assured Atty. Laguio, Jr. that she would serve the summons and furnish a copy of her return thereof within a week.

Atty. Laguio Jr., filed the present administrative complaint against Casicas for the latter’s failure to serve summon despite numerous follow ups.

Casicas avers that she had, before the administrative complaint against her, already served the summons through substituted service. Atty. Laguio Jr. subsequently brought to the attention of the Court Administrator. Casicas’s alleged deliberate act of delaying for 20 days the mailing of a copy of her Comment to him, for while copy of her Comment was filed at the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on January 28, 2005, Atty. Laguio’s copy was mailed only on February 17, 2005.

ISSUES:

Whether or not respondent Mila Amante-Casicas is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty

HELD:

For her failure to promptly serve the summons, Casicas is guilty of simple neglect of duty which is defined as ―the failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.‖

Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense, penalized with suspension from One Month and One Day to Six Months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.

This Court is not unaware of the heavy workload in our Judiciary, but the same does not suffice as an excuse to evade administrative liability.