A.M. No. P-03-1704. March 15, 2004. SPS. ARTURO AND CORAZON BLANQUISCO, petitioners, vs. ATTY. ASUNCION AUSTERO-BOLILAN, Clerk of Court VI, respondent.
FACTS

Spouses Arturo and Corazon Blanquisco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Asuncion Austero-Bolilan, Clerk of Court of the RTC of Tabaco City, seeking her dismissal and disbarment. The complaint stemmed from a certification issued by respondent in August 1997. The certification stated that Lot Nos. 4422-B and 4422-C were not involved in any litigation or offered as a bond, based on her office records. This certification was issued in favor of Angelina Gloria Ong, a defendant in Civil Case No. T-1824, a case for annulment of a deed of partition involving the estate of the late spouses Manalang, pending before the RTC and on appeal with the Court of Appeals. The complainants alleged that the certification, which was false, enabled Ong to cancel a notice of lis pendens annotated on the titles and subsequently sell the properties, to their prejudice.
In her defense, respondent argued she verified the certification by reviewing the complaint and deed of partition. She noted the complaint described a property as located in “Pili, Tabaco, Albay,” a non-existent barangay, and the deed referenced only “Lot No. 4422.” She concluded these were technically distinct from the specific Lots 4422-B and 4422-C located in San Antonio. She also relied on a verbal confirmation from a relative, Maximo Balayo, who owned a portion of Lot 4422-A, that his property was not involved in the case. Respondent invoked the ruling in Arias v. Sandiganbayan, arguing she had the right to rely on her subordinates’ work.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Asuncion Austero-Bolilan is administratively liable for issuing the certification regarding the litigation status of Lot Nos. 4422-B and 4422-C.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. The Court found her explanation insufficient. While the complaint and deed used general descriptions (“Pili Farm,” “Lot No. 4422”), these references were clearly related to the cadastral Lot 4422, from which the subject Lots B and C were derived. This connection, coupled with the fact that the requestor was a party-defendant in the very case, should have prompted a more diligent and exhaustive verification. Her duty required her to ascertain the truth from the court records of the pending case itself, not from extraneous sources.
The Court rejected her reliance on the Arias doctrine, which allows heads of office to rely on subordinates in specific contexts like procurement. This case involved a core judicial function—issuing a certification on litigation status—where personal diligence was paramount. Consulting a relative who was not a party to the case was an inadequate substitute for checking with the Branch Clerk of Court where the case was pending. As a clerk of court, an essential officer in the judiciary, she is held to a high standard of care. Her failure to exercise the requisite diligence constituted simple neglect, defined as a disregard of duty due to carelessness or indifference. However, considering the circumstances, the penalty imposed was a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) with a stern warning.