A.M. No. P-225 - MARCH 1975 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. P-225 March 3, 1975 Juan L. Nassr, Jr., et al. vs. Arthur Moltio G.R. Nos. L-37201-02 March 3, 1975 Clemente Magtoto vs. Miguel M. Manguera Dissenting OpinionJustice Castro, Justice Teehankee, Justice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Antonio G.R. No. L-25748 March 10, 1975 Consolidated Terminals, Inc. vs. Artex Development Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-33720 March 10, 1975 Phil. British Co. vs. Walfrido De Los Angeles G.R. No. L-39669 March 10, 1975 Int'l. Hotel Corp. vs. Elias B. Asuncion G.R. No. L-40044 March 10, 1975 Pablo Ramos Caeg vs. Vicente Abad Santos G.R. No. L-28248 March 12, 1975 Leonora Perido, et al. vs. Maria Perido, et al. G.R. No. L-35783 March 12, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Salik Magonawal, et al. G.R. No. L-38427 March 12, 1975 Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Jesus P. Morfe, et al. G.R. No. L-23842 March 13, 1975 Alejandro A. Lichauco vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-38626 March 14, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Stephen Douglas Strong G.R. No. L-27263 March 17, 1975 Aurelio De Los Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. L-26888-89 March 17, 1975 Milagros M. Vda. De Garcia, et al. vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-28453 March 21, 1975 Eusebio Toribio, et al. vs. Gregorio D. Montejo, et al. G.R. No. L-30477 March 21, 1975 Ernesto S. Mata, et al. vs. Lourdes P. San Diego, et al. G.R. No. L-38280 March 21, 1975 St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Jose C. Campos, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-39655 March 21, 1975 Arrow Transportation Corporation vs. Board of Transportation, et al. G.R. No. L-40018 March 21, 1975 Northern Motors, Inc. vs. Jorge R. Coquia G.R. No. L-40060 March 21, 1975 Emeterio Duque vs. Captain Vinarao, et al. A.C. No. 1054 March 25, 1975 Juan Azor vs. Eustaquio Beltran G.R. No. L-25069 March 25, 1975 Jose G. Samala vs. Saulog Transit, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-25142 March 25, 1975 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., et al. vs. Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-27382 March 25, 1975 Associated Labor Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-33344 March 25, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Agripino Bunsol G.R. No. L-35113 March 25, 1975 Eugenio Cuaresma vs. Marcelo Daquis G.R. No. L-38206 March 25, 1975 Pablo Nonan vs. Andres B. Plan G.R. No. L-38453-54 March 25, 1975 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro C. Navarro G.R. No. L-38502 March 25, 1975 Pio B. Ferandos vs. Juan Y. Reyes G.R. No. L-38510 March 25, 1975 Sps. Medina and Bernal vs. Nelly L. Romero Valdellon G.R. No. L-38974 March 25, 1975 Omico Mining vs. Amador T. Vallejos G.R. No. L-39146 March 25, 1975 Trinidad De Leon Vda. De Roxas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-40136 March 25, 1975 Cosmos Foundry Union vs. Lo Bu G.R. No. L-40247 March 25, 1975 American Insurance Co. vs. United States Lines Company, et al. G.R. No. L-25849 March 26, 1975 Roberto Laperal vs. Pacifico Cruz The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Juan L. Nassr, Jr., et al. vs. Arthur Moltio Clemente Magtoto vs. Miguel M. Manguera Dissenting OpinionJustice Castro, Justice Teehankee, Justice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Antonio Consolidated Terminals, Inc. vs. Artex Development Co., Inc. Phil. British Co. vs. Walfrido De Los Angeles Int'l. Hotel Corp. vs. Elias B. Asuncion Pablo Ramos Caeg vs. Vicente Abad Santos Leonora Perido, et al. vs. Maria Perido, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Salik Magonawal, et al. Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Jesus P. Morfe, et al. Alejandro A. Lichauco vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Stephen Douglas Strong Aurelio De Los Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Milagros M. Vda. De Garcia, et al. vs. Auditor General Eusebio Toribio, et al. vs. Gregorio D. Montejo, et al. Ernesto S. Mata, et al. vs. Lourdes P. San Diego, et al. St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Jose C. Campos, Jr., et al. Arrow Transportation Corporation vs. Board of Transportation, et al. Northern Motors, Inc. vs. Jorge R. Coquia Emeterio Duque vs. Captain Vinarao, et al. Juan Azor vs. Eustaquio Beltran Jose G. Samala vs. Saulog Transit, Inc., et al. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., et al. vs. Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., et al. Associated Labor Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Agripino Bunsol Eugenio Cuaresma vs. Marcelo Daquis Pablo Nonan vs. Andres B. Plan People of the Philippines vs. Pedro C. Navarro Pio B. Ferandos vs. Juan Y. Reyes Sps. Medina and Bernal vs. Nelly L. Romero Valdellon Omico Mining vs. Amador T. Vallejos Trinidad De Leon Vda. De Roxas vs. Court of Appeals Cosmos Foundry Union vs. Lo Bu American Insurance Co. vs. United States Lines Company, et al. Roberto Laperal vs. Pacifico Cruz The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-225 March 3, 1975
JUAN L. NASSR, JR., DIB, ODETTE and EMILY all surnamed NASSR., represented by their guardian JUAN D. NASSR, SR.,complainants,
vs.
ARTHUR MOLTIO,respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
MUNOZ PALMA,J.:
Respondent Arthur Moltio, Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet detailed with Branch IV, is charged with "misconduct in office, neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service", with Juan L. Nassr, Jr. and others, as complainants.
In the month of December, 1973, there was pending before the above-mentioned court a complaint for Injunction, docketed as Civil Case 2589, entitled: "Juan L. Nassr, Jr., et al. vs. Enelea Sta. Maria-Naluz, et al." in which a writ of preliminary injunction had been issued. On the 12th of December, respondent sheriff received an "Order to Dissolve Writ of Preliminary Injunction" for service to the parties. (p. 15,rollo)
On December 13, respondent furnished copies of said order to Atty. Teopisto Rondez, counsel of the defendants surnamed Sta. Maria, and to the City Legal Officer, both of whom had their offices at the City Hall, the former being then incumbent councilor. On December 15, respondent sent by registered mail a copy of the order to Atty. Manolo Kimpo, counsel of defendants Laperal.
No servicewas made however to Atty. Constante Pimentel, the lawyer of the plaintiffs Nassr, now complainants, not untilJanuary 2, 1974,notwithstanding the fact that his address was just across the City Hall. (pp. 12, 15,ibid)
Due to the failure of respondent sheriff to notify promptly Atty. Pimentel, complainants herein were deprived of their opportunity to oppose or seek a reconsideration of the aforesaid order.ℒαwρhi৷As a result, the Sta. Marias were able to operate the Session Theatre in Baguio City from December 22, 1973, that is, during the Christmas holidays, a matter which precisely was in dispute in the injunction case.
In answer to this complaint filed against him, respondent offers the excuse that he could not remember if he had served copy of the order of the court to Atty. Constante Pimentel, or, if he did, the receipt must have been lost or misplaced by him. He claims that there was no intention to delay the service of the order, and denies any collusion between him and the Sta. Marias, or that he was bribed by the latter.
The actuation of respondent in the instant case is highly censurable. Respondent's failure to promptly serve the herein complainants through their counsel with a copy of the trial court's order dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction was We believe deliberate, intentional, and calculated to forestall any possible action on the part of the Nassrs to oppose or seek a reconsideration of the aforementioned order and enable the Sta. Marias to operate the Session Theatre during the peak of the Christmas season. For there was no reason or excuse at all why respondent could not send a copy of the order to Atty. Pimentel whose office was just in front of the City Hall where the courthouse is located, when he was able to serve copies of the order on the city legal officer and the lawyer of the Sta. Marias on December 13, 1973, and mail to the lawyer of the Laperal's the latter's copy, on the 15th. Respondent's assertion that he cannot now remember if he served a copy of the order on Atty. Constante Pimentel, or that if he had served it he must have lost or misplaced the proof of service, is a plain admission not only of gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of his duties, but of possible collusion with the adverse parties of the Nassrs.
IN CONCLUSION,We hereby find respondent guilty of the charge of negligence, incompetence, and wilful obstruction to a speedy and efficient service of the trial court's processes. In view of the fact, however, that respondent is no longer in the service as his temporary appointment as a deputy sheriff expired on February 23, 1974, no disciplinary action can be taken against him. Let Our findings, however, be spread on his personal record on file with this Court, for future reference.
So Ordered.
Castro (Chairman), Teehankee, Makasiar and Esguerra, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët