A.M. No. P-96-1219. August 15, 1997. COURT OF APPEALS vs. MARCELO ESCALANTE, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Sorsogon, Sorsogon.
FACTS

This administrative case originated from a probate proceeding for the will of Henry Grant. The Court of Appeals, resolving a petition challenging the will’s allowance, was confronted with two conflicting certified photocopies of the document. The first, submitted by petitioner Gloria Sotto and certified by respondent Clerk of Court Marcelo Escalante, lacked the required marginal signatures on several pages. The second, later certified by a staff member for Escalante, contained the signatures. The appellate court’s examination revealed that the first photocopy was tampered; the signatures were physically covered during copying to create an appearance of invalidity.
The Court of Appeals ordered Escalante to transmit the original and explain the discrepancy. He submitted only an original carbon copy, explaining the original was missing. The court found the second certified copy matched this carbon original, while Sotto’s copy was deceitfully altered. The confusion caused by the differing certifications prompted the appellate court to refer the matter for administrative investigation against Escalante.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court Marcelo Escalante is administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duties related to the certification of court documents.

RULING

Yes, respondent Escalante is administratively liable for gross negligence. The Court emphasized the clerk of court’s vital role as a custodian of records and an officer tasked with issuing certified true copies. His duty requires the highest degree of care and diligence to preserve the integrity of court records and processes.
The legal logic is anchored on the specific duty of a clerk of court when certifying documents. The Court found Escalante remiss for certifying a copy of the will as a true copy without first personally examining and comparing it against the original record on file to verify its fidelity. His explanation—that the signatures were blocked by nylon stitches when photocopied from a voluminous record—only underscored his negligence. Proper procedure demands a direct comparison to ensure the copy is a complete and accurate reproduction before certification is affixed.
By failing in this fundamental duty, Escalante introduced an unfaithful document into the judicial process, causing confusion and delaying the proceedings before the Court of Appeals. This constitutes gross negligence, which undermines public trust in the administration of justice. For this infraction, the Court suspended Marcelo Escalante for one month without pay and issued a stern warning against repetition.