FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-14-3220. October 8, 2018.](formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3713-P)
CHARITO A. OMAÑA-HAM, complainant, vs.JOEY V. PACIENCIA, CLERK OF COURT V AND ARMANDO M. PLAZA, PROCESS SERVER, BOTH OF BRANCH 48, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 8, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-14-3220 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3713-P) — CHARITO A. OMAÑA-HAM, Complainant, v. JOEY V. PACIENCIA, CLERK OF COURT V AND ARMANDO M. PLAZA, PROCESS SERVER, BOTH OF BRANCH 48, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, Respondents.
Before the Court is an Affidavit-Complaint dated September 5, 2011 1 filed by complainant Charito A. Omaña-Ham (Charito) against the respondent employees of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 48; namely, Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Joey V. Paciencia (Paciencia), and Process Server Armando M. Plaza (Plaza). The charges stemmed from respondents' alleged acts of falsification in connection with Spec. Proc. Case No. 11-125283 involving the petition for declaratory relief for capacity to remarry under Article 26, par. 2 of the Family Code filed by complainant's husband Jimmy Cheong Ham (Jimmy). The petition essentially sought to enforce the foreign divorce decree secured by Jimmy, a Chinese citizen.
With respect to respondent Plaza, complainant Charito alleged that he falsified his return of summons in the aforementioned case to make it appear that summons had been received on her behalf by a certain Efren T. Villanoa who was supposedly her uncle. Charito disclaimed knowing anyone named Efren T. Villanoa (Villanoa) and she further asserted that summons had been served at the wrong address at 1045 Birmingham Street, Brookside Hills Subdivision, Cainta when her true address is 1055 Birmingham Street, Brookside Hills Subdivision, Cainta. In support of her claim, she presented a sworn affidavit executed by the true owner of the house on 1045 Birmingham Street, and her identification cards which indicated 1055 Birmingham Street as her true address. Charito also decried the unusual haste that attended the alleged service of summons as Plaza appeared to have attempted to personally serve summons only twice on June 7, 2011 (the very same day that the summons was issued) and on June 8, 2011 on which date Villanoa ostensibly received it. CAIHTE
As for respondent Paciencia, complainant charged him with falsification of court records and claimed that the signature of Efren T. Villanoa on the summons appeared to have the same strokes as the signature of Paciencia. In a similar vein, complainant contended that the signature of Paciencia also resembled the signature of complainant's husband Jimmy in the amended petition which was markedly different from Jimmy's signature appearing in the original petition. This led complainant to conclude that said amended petition was likewise falsified. To bolster her allegation, complainant showed that Jimmy could not have possibly signed the amended petition as he was out of the country on the dates the same was purportedly signed and notarized. Attached to the complaint was a certification of dates of arrival and departure of Jimmy issued by the Bureau of Immigration stating that he departed the country on March 3, 2011 and returned only on June 27, 2011. Thus, Jimmy could not have signed the amended petition nor could he have appeared before a notary public to verify the same on May 5, 2011 as could be gleaned on the face of the amended petition. Charito argued that the petition had jurisdictional defects in that there was no appearance by the Solicitor General in the case and that there was no investigation or report by the City Prosecutor verifying if collusion existed between the parties. That Paciencia allowed the amended petition to be admitted was highly irregular.
On August 18, 2011, Charito came to know of the filing of the amended petition when she was handed by her household helper a notice of hearing, stating that preliminary conference on the case will be held on September 2, 2011. During the September 2, 2011 hearing, Charito filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over her person and the petitioner Jimmy, and over the subject matter of the case.
In the present complaint, Charito likewise requested a change of venue for the case as she feared for her life and safety after filing the administrative complaint against respondents.
In his Comment/Answer, respondent Plaza vehemently denied falsifying his return of summons. He simply proceeded to the address as stated in the amended petition. On his first attempt on June 7, 2011, he failed to effect service as no one responded when he repeatedly knocked and called out at the gate of the house on 1045 Birmingham Street. On June 8, 2011, he returned to the aforementioned address and while knocking and calling out, a man approached him and asked for his identity and his purpose for being there. The man introduced himself as Efren T. Villanoa and stated that he was the uncle of the complainant. Villanoa told Plaza that Charito was out of the house so the latter asked the former to receive the summons on behalf of Charito. It was Villanoa himself who wrote "uncle" below his name and signature on the summons. When Plaza prepared his return of summons, he claimed that he was just performing his function efficiently and in good faith. He further stressed that in all his 37 years 2 of government service he had never been the subject of administrative proceedings.
For his part, respondent Paciencia, in his own Comment/Answer, took strong exception to the accusation that he falsified the signatures of Villanoa and Jimmy based purely on the surmises of the complainant who was not a handwriting expert. According to him, even an ordinary person can easily discern that his signature was not the same as Villanoa's or Jimmy's. Nonetheless, he was willing to submit all necessary documents and requirements to prove that the signatures on the summons and the amended petition were made by different persons as long as the process was done at the expense of Charito. He likewise averred that there was nothing irregular in his actions as it was by order signed by the presiding judge that the amended petition was admitted. He maintained that complainant was not telling the truth in saying there was no appearance on the part of the Office of the Solicitor General. He argued that a collusion report was not required as this was a case for recognition of foreign judgment and not one for declaration of nullity of a void marriage or annulment of a voidable marriage. Lastly, Paciencia asserted that the prayer for a change of venue was "malicious, whimsical, and capricious" as it was meant to "point fingers [at] innocent persons." 3
In a Report dated January 15, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent Plaza liable for improper service of summons but cleared respondent Paciencia of the administrative charges against him. It also opined that the request for transfer of venue was baseless. Thus, the OCA recommended that:
(1) the instant administrative complaint against Clerk of Court V Joey V. Paciencia, Branch 48, RTC, Manila, be DISMISSED for lack of merit; DETACa
(2) the request of complainant Charito A. Omaña-Ham for the change of venue of [Spec. Proc.] Case No. 11-125283 be DENIED for lack of merit;
(3) the instant administrative complaint against Process Server Armando M. Plaza, Branch 48, RTC, Manila, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and
(4) respondent Process Server be REPRIMANDED for Simple Neglect of Duty for improper service of summons with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with severely. 4
RULING OF THE COURT
Anent the charges against respondent Paciencia, the Court upholds the findings and recommendations of the OCA. It is elementary that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. 5 We have also held in the past that:
The weight of evidence required in administrative investigations is substantial evidence, "or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable man might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, substantial evidence is the lowest standard of proof provided under the Rules of Court. In assessing whether there is substantial evidence in administrative investigations such as this case, the Court is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence. 6
Yet, complainant failed to comply with this liberal standard of proof. Other than her self-serving speculations, there is nothing on record to support Charito's allegations that Paciencia forged the signatures of Villanoa and Jimmy. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. 7 Neither is the Court convinced that there was impropriety on the part of respondent Clerk of Court in the admission of the amended complaint. As correctly pointed out by the OCA, it was the presiding judge which gave due course to the amended petition in an Order dated May 26, 2011. 8
We likewise agree with the OCA that respondent Plaza failed to properly serve the summons on complainant. It is settled in jurisprudence that for substituted service of summons to be valid, the process server must establish the impossibility of prompt personal service and he must have made at least three attempts on two different dates within a reasonable period of one month. 9 Plaza's two attempts in two days fell short of this jurisprudential requirement.
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that:
[T]he duty of a process server is vital to the administration of justice. A process server's primary duty is to serve court notices which precisely requires utmost care on his part to ensure that all notices assigned to him are duly served on the parties. It is through the process server that defendants learn of the action brought against them by the complainant. Significantly, it is also through the service of summons by the process server that the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. It is therefore important that summonses, other writs and court processes be served expeditiously. 10
Thus, a process server's failure to serve notices properly constitutes simple neglect of duty. 11 As this was respondent's first offense in his more than 40 years of service and it was not shown that he was guilty of bad faith, the OCA recommended that respondent be reprimanded.
However, in view of the death of Process Server Armando M. Plaza, as evidenced by the death certificate 12 attached in the records of this case, the complaint against him is dismissed.
On complainant's request to transfer the venue of the case, the same is denied for want of factual and legal bases. aDSIHc
It is true that Section 5 (4), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that this Court has the power to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, where there are serious and weighty reasons present which would prevent the court of original jurisdiction from conducting a fair and impartial trial, this Court has been mandated to order a change of venue so as to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 13
In the case at bar, complainant failed to substantiate her claim of a threat to her life should the case continue to be heard by the court a quo. To be sure, mere allegations without any evidence to support the same will not prevail. 14
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Clerk of Court V Joey V. Paciencia is DISMISSED for lack of merit; the instant administrative complaint against Process Server Armando M. Plaza, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila, is DISMISSED in view of his death; and the request of complainant Clarita A. Omaña-Ham for change of venue of Civil Case No. 11-125283 is DENIED for lack of merit. ATICcS
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2. This was as of the time of the filing of Plaza's Comment/Answer.
3.Rollo, p. 39.
4.Id. at 64.
5.Ejercito v. Suerte, 457 Phil. 368, 376 (2003).
6.Balanza v. Criste, 772 Phil. 1, 10 (2015).
7.Office of the Court Administrator v. Umblas, 795 Phil. 515, 526 (2016).
8.Rollo, p. 63.
9.Ang v. Chinatrust (Philippines) Commercial Bank Corp., 784 Phil. 791, 801 (2016).
10. Office of the Court Administrator v. Chavez, A.M. Nos. RTJ-10-2219 & 12-7-130-RTC, March 7, 2017, 819 SCRA 446, 474.
11. See, Tolentino-Fuentes v. Galindez (Resolution), 635 Phil. 181, 187 (2010).
12. Rollo, p. 80.
13. Ala v. Peras, 676 Phil. 192, 219 (2011).
14. Valenton v. Melgar (Resolution), 292 Phil. 376, 380 (1993).