Case Digest: JUDGE MARQUEZ v. PABLICO

JUDGE PLACIDO C. MARQUEZ v. MARIO M. PABLICO
556 SCRA 531 (2008)

Though we find the respondent answerable to the charges aired by the complainant, a meticulous perusal of the documents presented by the Marquez reveals no single instance where Pablico’s neglect of duty resulted in the disruption of service to the public nor did it damage or prejudice any litigant.

Judge Placido C. Marquez, then Presiding Judge, Manila Regional Trial Court, issued two letters-memoranda to Mario Pablico, Branch Process Server, directing him to explain why he should not be recommended to be dropped from the rolls, for failure to attach registry receipts and registry return cards to the records of the some cases. In Mario M. Pablico’s letter-comment, he denied the charge and attached copies of several Orders issued in the cases listed in the memoranda, together with the corresponding registry receipts and registry return cards. Marquez manifested his dissatisfaction with the

explanation of Pablico and recommended that he be dropped from the rolls. He averred that they were accomplished only after a physical inventory of all pending cases was conducted and his attention to his failure to accomplish them was repeatedly called.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Pablico committed gross neglect of duty as a court process server

HELD:

In the meantime, this Court, in A.M. No. 06-2-92-RTC, “Re: Droping from the Rolls of Mr. Mario M. Pablico, Process Server, RTC, Br. 40, Manila,” after considering the Report dated January 31, 2006 of the OCA, issued Resolution dated June 28, 2006 dropping respondent from the rolls “for obtaining ‘Unsatisfactory’ performance ratings during the periods from 01 July to 31 December 2003, 01 January to 30 June 2004 and 01 July to 31 December 2004 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the continuation of the administrative complaints filed against him.” The Court thereupon declared the position of Process Server, Branch 40 of the Manila RTC vacant.

The Court is not unaware of the heavy workload of court personnel in Manila, given the number of cases filed and pending before it. It does not, however, serve as a convenient excuse to evade administrative liability; otherwise, every government employee faced with negligence and dereliction of duty would resort to that excuse to evade punishment, to the detriment of the public service.

To fault Pablico only for simple neglect of duty on account of the observation of Judge Eugenio that “no single instance where Pablico’s neglect of duty resulted in the disruption of service to the public nor did it damage or prejudice any litigant” does not sit well with the Court.

Judge Eugenio himself found that respondent’s infractions were “habitual” which, under Section 53, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, could be appreciated as either extenuating, mitigating, or aggravating. It cannot be gainsaid that respondent’s habituality of infractions calls for its treatment as aggravating in the present case.

Under the same Uniform Rules, gross neglect of duty is classified as a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense. This Court having, as priorly stated, ordered the dropping of respondent from the rolls in another administrative matter, in line with Sibulo v. San Jose where the therein respondent was found guilty of gross neglect in the performance of his duty but was earlier dropped from the rolls, now imposes upon him a fine in the amount of P5,000, and orders all his benefits, except accrued leave credits, forfeited, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations and financial institutions.