Santiago v. Pijana

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-20-4046. March 4, 2020.]

ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE JAIME SANTIAGO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite, complainant,vs. SHERIFF IV LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, same court, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 4, 2020which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-20-4046 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-4763-P) — ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE JAIME SANTIAGO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite,complainant, versus SHERIFF IV LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, same court,respondent.

This is an administrative complaint against respondent Laydabell G. Pijana (respondent Pijana), Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18 (RTC), for serious irregularity and neglect of duty relative to her failure to serve summons in Civil Case No. TG-15-165, entitled "Heirs of Gorgonio Ocampo v. Heirs of Mario Ambion, et al." (the Civil Case).

In a Letter-Complaint dated November 20, 2017, Judge Jaime B. Santiago (Judge Santiago), Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC alleged that in the course of monitoring the cases pending before the RTC, he came across the Civil Case and found summons for the defendants therein was duly received by respondent Pijana, yet no action was taken by the latter.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) then issued its 1st Indorsement 1 dated January 4, 2018 referring the complaint to respondent Pijana for comment. In her Comment 2 dated April 2, 2018, respondent Pijana referred to the instant complaint as the latest in a string of harassment cases filed by Judge Santiago against her. She claimed that Judge Santiago filed several administrative cases against her after she filed a complaint against him. With respect to the case at bar, respondent Pijana reiterated her allegations in her explanation letter.

The OCA found sufficient basis to hold respondent Pijana liable for simple neglect of duty. The OCA found her explanation devoid of merit, and recommended finding respondent Pijana guilty of simple neglect of duty and meting her the corresponding penalty.

The Court finds the OCA's recommendations in order.

The circumstances in the instant case support the charge of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. 3 Under Section 46 (D), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense which carries the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal from service for the second offense.

The suspension of respondent Pijana is in order. However, to avert any undue adverse effect on public service that would ensue if respondent Pijana would be suspended, the Court finds the penalty of fine as recommended by the OCA appropriate in order that she can continue to discharge her assigned tasks. In Collado-Lacorte v. Rabena, 4 the Court fined the respondent process server in the amount of P5,000.00 instead of suspending him for simple neglect of duty.

The Court likewise adopts the recommendation of the OCA to increase the fine in the amount of P10,000.00 considering that respondent Pijana favored one party in withholding the filing of the Sheriffs Return that would have updated the court on the status of the summons. Evidently, the withholding of the filing of the return has prejudiced the plaintiffs in the case.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Ms. LAYDABELL G. PIJANA is GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and should be FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to be paid within thirty (30) days from notice. Ms. Pijana is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty from the Court.

The Report dated December 5, 2019 of the Office of the Court Administrator is NOTED.

SO ORDERED." Peralta, C.J., on official business.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 13.

2.Id. at 16-21.

3.Pesongco v. Estoya, 519 Phil. 226, 242 (2006).

4. 612 Phil. 327 (2009).