Fuentes and her client attended the 6 March 2006 hearing, incurred expenses, and had their time wasted.

Civil Case No. 31148-2005

In an order3 dated 8 November 2005, the RTC set the preliminary hearing on 18 November 2005. Atty. Tolention-Fuentes' client received a copy of the 8 November 2005 order only on 7 December 2005. The envelope containing the order was postmarked 5 December 2005.

In an order dated 18 November 2005, the RTC set the formal offer of exhibits in evidence on 28 November 2005. Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes' client received a copy of the 18 November 2005 order only on 7 December 2005.

The envelope containing the order was postmarked 5 December 2005.

Because of the late receipt of the orders, Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes' client was unable to participate in the presentation of evidence and cross-examination of witness. As a result, he had to file with the RTC a motion for reconsideration of the 18 November 2005 order for lack of due process.

Civil Case No. 22989-94

A hearing was set on 28 March 2006. In a notice dated 10 March 2006, the RTC canceled the 28 March 2006 hearing. Galindez received a copy of the 10 March 2006 notice on 17 March 2006. However, Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes received a copy of the 10 March 2006 notice only on 29 March 2006. Consequently, Atty. TolentinoFuentes and her witness attended the 29 March 2006 hearing, incurred expenses, and wasted their time.

Civil Case No. 29418-2002

A hearing was set on 29 March 2006. In a notice9 dated 14 March 2006, the RTC

3 Id. at 11.

4 Id. at 12.

5 Id. at 13.

6 Id. at .13.

canceled the 29 March 2006 hearing. Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes received a copy of the 14 March 2006 notice only on 29 March 2006.

Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) an affidavit-complaint 10 dated 30 March 2006, charging Galindez with simple neglect of duty. In its 1st Indorsement11 dated 24 April 2006, the OCA directed Galindez to comment on the affidavit-complaint.

In motions dated 8 May, 12 10 June,13 3 July, 14 22 July, 15 and 5 August16 2006, Galindez prayed for extension of time to file his comment. In his comment17 dated 22 August 2006, Galindez admitted Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes' accusations and gave as excuses that (1) he had a heavy workload, (2) the RTC had no vehicle, and (3) he was poor.

In its report18 dated 18 October 2007, the OCA found Galindez guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and recommended that he be suspended for six months and one day. In a Resolution 19 dated 5 December 2007, the Court re-docketed the affidavit-complaint as a regular administrative matter. In their manifestations dated 16 January20 and 18 June21 2009, Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes and Galindez, respectively, submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.

The Court finds Galindez liable for simple neglect of duty.

As a process server, Galindez has the duty to ensure that court notices are properly served to the parties. In Atty. Dajao v. Lluch, 22 the Court held that:

10 Id. at 2-3. 11 Id. at 18. 12 Id. at 19. 13 Id. at 21-23.

14 Id. at 26-28.

15 Id. at 32-34.

16 Id. at 37-39.

17 Id. at 48-50.

18 Id. at 127-129.

19 Id. at 130.

7 Id. at 14-15.

8 Id. at-8.

9 Id. at 9.

20 Id. at 133.

21 Id. at 137.

22 429 Phil. 620 (2002).

The duty of a process server is vital to the machinery of the justice system. His primary duty is "to serve court notices" which precisely requires utmost care on his part by seeing to it that all notices assigned to him are duly served upon the parties. Thus, respondent should have carefully examined each of the "voluminous notices" assigned to him, scanning and reading every page to ensure that every notice to the party concerned will be served properly.23

In the present case, Galindez failed to serve court notices properly: (1) Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes received a copy of the 15 March 2005 notice canceling the 29 March 2005 hearing only on 4 April 2005; (2) Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes received a copy of the 21 February 2006 order canceling the 6 and 14 March 2006 hearings only on 29 March 2006; (3) Atty. Tolentino's client received a copy of the 8 November 2005 order setting the preliminary hearing on 18 November 2005 only on 7 December 2005; (4) Atty. Tolentino's client received a copy of the 18 November 2005 order setting the formal offer of exhibits in evidence on,28 November 2005 only on 7 December 2005; (5) Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes received a copy of the 10 March 2006 notice canceling the 28 March 2006 hearing only on 29 March 2006; and (6) Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes received a copy of the 14 March 2006 notice canceling the 29 March 2006 hearing only

on 29 March 2006. Because of Galindez's failure to serve court notices properly, Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes and her client incurred unnecessary expenses and had their time wasted. Also, Atty. Tolentino-Fuentes' other client was unable to participate in the presentation of evidence and crossexamination of witness.

Galindez's excuses for his failure to serve court notices properly are weak and unpersuasive. In Seangio v. Parce,24 the Court held that having a heavy workload is not a compelling reason to justify failure to perform one's duties properly. "Otherwise, every government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty [would] always proffer a similar excuse to escape

23 Id. at 624-625.

24 A.M. No. P-06-2252, 9 July 2007, 527 SCRA 24, 35.

It

In Collado-Lacorte v. Rabena,27 Labis, Jr. v. Estañol,28 Reyes v. Pablico,29 and several other cases, the Court found process servers liable for simple neglect of duty for failure to serve court notices properly. Simple neglect of duty is failure to give proper attention to a required task: signifies disregard of duty due to carelessness or indifference.30 Section 52(B)(1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service31 classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense punishable by one month and one day to six months suspension for the first offense. Section 54 states that the medium period of the penalty shall be imposed when there are no mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Michael Patrick A. Galindez, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Davao City, GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from office for three (3) months without pay and STERNLY WARNS him that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro,* Peralta and Abad, JJ., concur.

25 Id.

26 A.M. No. P-06-2231, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 286, 292.

27 A.M. No. P-09-2665, 4 August 2009, 595 SCRA 15.

28 A.M. No. P-07-2405, 27 February 2008, 547 SCRA 11.

29 A.M. No. P-06-2109, 27 November 2006, 508 SCRA 146.

30 Atty. Dajao v. Lluch, supra note 22 and 626. 31 Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated 31 August 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.

Designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WHOEVER ALLEGES A FACT MUST PROVE THAT FACT BY CONVINCING EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR-As to the alleged falsification of respondent's income tax return, we find no evidence on record showing that respondent listed the child as additional dependent. Respondent presented a certification issued by the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office of Rizal, Nueva Ecija as well as her income tax returns for taxable years 2005 and 2006 to prove that the only dependent she claimed was her 90-year old father, Rafael Baldonado. Against this, complainant has nothing but bare allegations. Whoever alleges a fact must prove that fact by convincing evidence. Complainant failed on this score.

2. CRIMINAL LAW: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST; FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT; INTENT TO INJURE A THIRD PERSON IS NOT NECESSARY; A CASE OF. With respect to the alleged falsification of the child's birth certificate, we find respondent guilty of dishonesty and falsification of a public document. A birth certificate, being a public document, serves as prima facie evidence of filiation. The making of a false statement therein constitutes dishonesty and falsification of a public document. Respondent cannot escape liability by claiming that she did not have any intention to conceal the identity of the child nor cause the loss of any trace as to the child's true filiation to the child's prejudice. When public documents are falsified, the intent to injure a third person need not be present because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth the document proclaims.

3. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; COURT PERSONNEL; DISHONESTY; DEFINED; A CASE OF.-Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement on any material fact in securing one's examination, appointment, or

registration. Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys honor, virtue, and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary. No doubt, court officials occupy an exalted position in society. They enjoy authoritative influence, which leaves the innocent public unlikely to raise any objection. Unfortunately, this is also the reason why they have more opportunities to commit dishonest acts. But dishonesty has no place in the judiciary and the Court will not hesitate to remove from among its ranks those found to be dishonest.

4. ID.; ID.; GRAVE OFFENSES, DISHONESTY AND FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT; PUNISHABLE BY DISMISSAL FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE; DISHONESTY NEED NOT BE COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES.Under Section 52, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, dishonesty and falsification of a public document are considered grave offenses punishable by dismissal for the first offense. Dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of official duties. If a government officer is dishonest, even if the conduct is not connected with the official function, it affects the discipline and morale of the service. The government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest employee, even if official duties are performed well. Respondent cannot separate her private life as a registrant of the child's false birth certificate from her public life as a court official. She is subject to discipline the moment she commits a dishonest act, whether in her private life or in her public life.

considered a mitigating circumstance in hér favor. The law requires that the mitigating circumstance must first be pleaded by the proper party. But in the interest of substantial justice, we may appreciate the mitigating circumstance in the imposition of penalty, even if not raised by respondent. We thus impose on respondent the penalty next lower in degree, which is suspension for six months and one day without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the

same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

OPINION OF THE COURT

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is an administrative case against Emma Baldonado Curamen, Court Interpreter I in the Municipal Trial Court of Rizal in Nueva Ecija, for dishonesty and falsification of a public document.

The Facts

an

On 6 March 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received anonymous complaint1 charging respondent with falsification of a public document and simulation of birth. The complaint alleged that respondent registered the birth of a child supposedly named Rica Mae Baldonado Curamen in the local civil registry of Rizal, Nueva Ecija. Complainant submitted the child's purported birth certificate2 to show respondent misrepresented that she was the child's biological mother and her husband, Ricardo Curamen, was the biological father. Complainant claimed respondent was, in fact, the child's maternal grandmother. Complainant submitted the child's original birth certificate3 to show that the child's real name was Rinea Mae Curamen Aquino and that her parents were spouses Olga Mae Baldonado Curamen Aquino and Jun Aquino. According to complainant, respondent included the child as additional dependent in her income tax declaration.

1 Rollo, p. 5.

2 Id. at 6.

3 Id. at 8.

In his Report, Executive Judge Rodrigo S. Caspillo of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 24) of Cabanatuan City verified that Rinea Mae Curamen Aquino and Rica Mae Baldonado Curamen were the same child. Judge Caspillo confirmed that the child was, in fact respondent's grandaughter. The child's real mother, Olga, was one of respondent's children. On 27 November 2005, Olga gave birth to a child named Rinea Mae Curamen Aquino. The fact of birth was registered in the Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija under Registry No. 2005-15495. The birth certificate indicated that the child's parents were Olga Mae Baldonado Curamen and Jun Aquino.

Judge Caspillo verified that on 31 March 2007, respondent executed an affidavit for delayed registration of the alleged birth of her child. Respondent claimed that her supposed child, Rica Mae Baldonado Curamen, was born on 30 November 2005. Respondent's application was given due course and the supposed birth of Rica Mae Baldonado Curamen was registered in the Civil Registry of Rizal, Nueva Ecija under Registry No. 2006-507. This second birth certificate of the child indicated that the child's parents were respondents and her husband.

In her Comment,5 respondent admitted that the real parents of the child were spouses Olga Mae Baldonado Curamen and Jun Aquino. Respondent claimed that the parents, being unemployed, were unable to support themselves let alone their child. She asserted that the child's parents actually depended on her and her husband for support. According to respondent, it was the child's parents themselves who proposed to register the birth of the child

anew.

Respondent insisted she had no intention to conceal the true identify of the child. Respondent justified her act as an example of a common practice among Filipinos to extend help to family members. As to the alleged falsification of her income tax return, respondent denied listing the child as additional dependent.

4 Id. at 13-14.

5 Id. at 25-28.

The OCA's Report and

Recommendation

As to the alleged falsification of the child's birth certificate, the OCA, in its Report and Recommendation, found respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. According to the OCA, respondent's act created a negative impression in the minds of the public that court officials could violate the law with impunity. As for the alleged falsification of respondent's income tax return, the OCA found no evidence that respondent claimed the child as additional dependent. The OCA recommended that respondent be suspended from the service for six months and one day, thus:

Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court are our recommendations that: 1. this administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

2. respondent Emma Baldonado Curamen, Court Interpreter I, Municipal Trial Court, Rizal, Nueva Ecija, be found GUILTY of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and be SUSPENDED FROM THE SERVICE for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day, the same to take effect immediately upon receipt by the respondent of the Court's decision;

3. Ms. Carmelita N. Ericta, Administrator and Civil Registrar General, National Census Statistics Office, be FURNISHED a copy of the Court's decision, the Certificate of Live Birth of Rica Mae Baldonado

Curamen, and the Affidavit for Delayed Registration of Birth executed by the respondent so that appropriate amendments relative to the true circumstances of the birth of one "Rinea Mae Curamen Aquino" can be affected; and

4. the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija be FURNISHED with a copy of the Court's decision on this administrative matter for appropriate action."

The Court's Ruling

As to the alleged falsification of respondent's income tax return, we find no evidence on record showing that respondent listed the child as additional dependent. Respondent presented a certification issued

6 Id. at 1-4.

7 Id. at 3-4.

8 Id. at 31.

by the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office of Rizal, Nueva Ecija as well as her income tax returns for taxable years 2005 and 2006 to prove that the only dependent she claimed was her 90-year old father, Rafael Baldonado. Against this, complainant has nothing but bare allegations, Whoever alleges a fact must prove that fact by convincing evidence." Complainant failed on this score.

With respect to the alleged falsification of the child's birth certificate, we find respondent guilty of dishonesty and falsification of a public document. A birth certificate, being a public document, serve as prima facie evidence of filiation.10 The making of a false statement therein constitutes dishonesty and falsification of a public document.

Respondent cannot escape liability by claiming that she did not have any intention to conceal the identity of the child nor cause the loss of any trace as to the child's true filiation to the child's prejudice. When public documents are falsified, the intent to injure a third person need not be present because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth the document proclaims.11

Respondent's justification for her act that the true parents of the child are unable to support the child as they are fully dependent on respondent for their own support is an affront to common sense. It taxes one's imagination how concealment of the child's true parents, through falsification of the child's birth certificate, will make it easier for respondent to support the child. Respondent can very well continue supporting the child as her own, as is the practice in Filipino families, without having to tamper with the child's birth

certificate.