This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "The 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 by ensuring that all notices assigned to him are duly served on the parties."[10] "Unjustified delay in performing this task constitutes neglect of duty and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions."[11] | |||||
|
2007-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Respondent's inefficiency and irresponsibility in the performance of his duties are reprehensible. While there may be no evidence that his acts were tainted with bad faith, he nevertheless failed to discharge his duties with judiciousness and proficiency. All employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency. As officers of the court and agents of the law, they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence.[29] The judiciary expects the best from all its employees. Respondent's performance is clearly wanting. Not only did his neglect delay the administration of justice; it also impaired public confidence in the judiciary.[30] | |||||
|
2004-07-22 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As a process server, respondent (1) serves court processes such as subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, summonses, court orders and notices; (2) prepares and submits returns of service of processes, (3) monitors messages or delivers court mail matters; (4) keeps in custody and maintains a record book of all mail matters received and dispatched by the court; and (5) performs such other duties as may be assigned by the Presiding Judge or Clerk of Court.[10] Thus, as a process server, respondent had no right or duty to take possession of the CZ Pistol. | |||||