Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > January 2011 Resolutions > A.M. No. P-05-2044 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2209-P), January 10, 2011 - CORAZON M. TIONGCO, COMPLAINANT VS. EMERSON B. PILIPIÑA, FORMER CLERK OF COURT III, NOW SHERIFF IV, NOTARIAL SECTION, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT. :

 

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 January 2011, which reads as follows:

A.M. No. P-05-2044 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2209-P) - CORAZON M. TIONGCO, complainant -versus- EMERSON B. PILIPINA, former Clerk of Court III, now Sheriff IV, Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, City of Manila, respondent

In a verified letter-complaint dated April 23, 2003,^[1] complainant Corazon M. Tiongco (Tiongco) requested the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to investigate the conflicting notarial certifications prepared by respondent Emerson B. Pilipina (Pilipiña), then Clerk of Court III, and issued by the Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC-OCC), City of Manila.

The first certification, issued to Tiongco in 2000, indicated that a certain Atty. Nestor M. Meiia (Atty. Mejia) was not appointed as notary public for and in the City of Manila in the year 1991.^[2] The second certification, issued in 2002, stated that Atty. Mejia was appointed notary public for and in the City of Manila from January 23, 1991 to December 31, 1992.^[3] Both certifications were signed by Atty. Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia (Atty. Buendia), Assistant Clerk of Court, and Gregorio B. Faraon (Faraon), Administrative Officer IV, thus, giving the impression that the information they contained, although contradicting, were true and correct.

On April 28, 2003, the OCA referred the matter to Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas (Judge Lanzanas) of Branch 7, Regional Trial Court (RTQ, Manila for investigation.^[4]

In his Report dated August 18, 2003,^[5] Judge Lanzanas confirmed the presence of the two conflicting certifications issued by the Notarial Section of the RTC-OCC, Manila. He also concluded that the contradicting information was brought about by Mr. Pilipina's negligence in preparing the first certification. Due to oversight, Mr. Pilipiña admitted that he overlooked the later pages of the Master List containing the continuation of the list of notaries public whose names start with the letter "M" and where the name of Atty. Mejia can be found.

In view of Judge Lanzanas' findings, the OCA recommended that Pilipina be reprimanded for simple neglect of duty, and be sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.

We agree with the OCA in finding the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty, but disagree with the recommended penalty of reprimand.

Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him and signifies disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.^[6] It is considered as a less grave offense and is punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first offense.^[7]

In the present case, we find negligence in the respondent's act of not strictly ascertaining the truth and the correctness of the information in the certification he prepared, which led to the complainant's confusion and inconvenience. His negligence also led to the signatures of Mr. Pilipiña's superiors, Atty. Buendia and Mr. Faraon, relying on Mr. Pilipiña's erroneous certification. The issuance of certifications is a duty that should not be taken lightly, as these certifications enjoy the presumption of regularity and are relied upon by the public and even by the authorities. It is imperative for the proper officer in this case, the clerk of court to ensure that the entries in every certificate issued are true and correct, so as not to mislead or cause inconvenience.

Considering, that this was an isolated incident attended by simple neglect, we deem it appropriate to impose the penalty of suspension at its minimum period.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Emerson B. Pilipiña, former Clerk of Court III and now Sheriff IV, of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, City of Manila, GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

---

cralaw Endnotes:

^[1] Rollo, p. 5.

^[2]  Id. at 7.

^[3] Id at 9.

^[4] Id. at 4,

^[5] Id at 34-38.

^[6] Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, G.R. No. 140519, August 21, 2001, 363 SCRA 480, 487.

^[7]  Dela Victoria v. Mongaya, A.M. No. P-00-1436, February 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 12, 18.