8/12/2019 PvIL Assignment

1/1

Source: From my special friends =)

SC: Courts May Still Receive Petitions for Correction of Clerical Errors in CivilRegistry

Trial courts still have jurisdiction over petitions for correction of clerical errors in the civilregistry, notwithstanding the enactment of RA 9048, the law authorizing local civil registrars tocorrect clerical errors in an entry and change the first name in a civil registry in administrative

proceedings

!n a "4#page decision penned $y %ustice &ante ' Tinga, the (upreme )ourt En Ban c clarifiedthe effect of RA 9048 while finding retired %udge )esar * (otero of the Regional Trial )ourt+RT) of -ani.ui, Tarlac guilty of gross ignorance of the law The )ourt held that what localcivil registrars have is primary, not e/clusive, jurisdiction over such petitions, with RA 9048

prescri$ing the procedures that petitioners and local registrars should follow

The )ourt said that when such petitions are filed $efore the regular courts, the proceduralre.uirements provided $y the Revised Rules of )ourt, as to the form and su$stance of the

petition and as to the necessity of pu$lication, should still $e complied with !t held that that $ased on the deli$erations on RA 9048, lawma ers had no intention of divesting trial courts ofthe authority to ma e judicial correction of entries in the civil registry as there was no mentionthat such petitions could no longer $e filed with the trial courts 1!n fact, it was clarified that thegrounds upon which the administrative process $efore the local civil registrar may $e availed ofare limited under the law2 hence, outside of such limited grounds, the judicial process should $eavailed of,3 said the )ourt

(otero was fined -h-40,000 for having acted on more than 00 cases for corrections of entriesfiled $efore the RT) of -ani.ui without fully complying with the procedural re.uirements underthe Rules of )ourt The )ourt said that (otero5s contention that he applied the procedure forcorrection of entries under RA 9048 instead of that under the Rules was without merit as it wasshown that he also failed to comply with the procedural re.uirements under the said law

*oreover, the )ourt found that some of the petitions acted on $y (otero involved su$stantialchanges in the registry such as change of age, status, se/, and nationality, which do not fallwithin the purview of RA 9048 +A* 6o 07# #4 4#RT), Re: Final Report on the Judicial

Audit Conducted at the RTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, 'cto$er 9, "00