Case Digest Col. Mauricio A. Santiago, Jr. (Ret.), vs. Arthur M.

Camangyan AM no P11 2977 September

14 2011

Facts: Camangyan is a process server in a certain case, and was tasked to serve a notice to a certain
Santiago. Santiago alleged that he never received a copy of the notice from Camangyan. Santiago
alleged that Camangyan deliberately did not serve him a copy of the notice, but her wife and her
counsel were sent a copy thereof. Santiago claimed the he was almost denied justice because of the said
event.

Camangyan in his defense said that his failure to serve a copy of notice was not deliberate and
malicious. He explained that he was supposed to serve the notice but a certain judge told him otherwise
because Santiago already was informed of the contents of the notice.

Issue: Whether Camangyan is liable for misconduct as an officer of the court.

Ruling: the court ruled that the failure of Camangyan to deliver the notice does not imply misconduct.
The court ruled that Camangyan merely obeyed orders of a judge. For Camangyan to disregard the
instruction of the judge would be considered insubordination. Nevertheless, Camangyan was reminded
to perform his duty diligently for the orderly administration of justice. Camangyan is admonished for his
failure to perform his duty.