BLANQUISCO

v.
AUSTERO BOLILAN
TRIAS, Antoniella, 2A

facts of the case

Atty. Austero Bolilan: Chief of the Office of the Clerk of
Court in Tabaco City
Sps. Blanquisco: parties to the Deed of Partition of the
entire estate of Don Manalang and Dona Legazpi
(including PILI FARMS)
There is a pending case in the CA on the Deed of Partition
(disproportional and unequal causing prejudice)
Notice of Lis Pendens: recorded on the back of Lot 4422
B&C
Respondent executed a Certification in favor of Angelina
Ong
Certified that there is no pending civil, criminal, land
registration or special proceeding in relation to Lot 4422
B & C (but was aware)

sps. blanquisco says...

Atty. Austero
Bolilan violated her
oath of office as a
lawyer.
She also committed the ff.
administrative offenses:
- Grave abuse of authority
- Oppression in office
- Dishonesty
- Falsification of Public document

All of Attys
arguments are
lame excuses.

atty. austero bolilan

says
Staff worked on
it; she only
certified it

Studied the
complaint;
only saw
PILI FARMS

That Lot 4422

not same as
4422 B & C

Asked Maximo
Belayo (4422
A)

Complaint
of Sps. is
unclear

Rule 13: only

upon court
order

Arias v
Sandiganbayan

issue
WON Clerk of Court
Austero Bolilan
should be held liable
for the negligent act?

held
YES, the SC adopted the
recommendation of OCA in fining her
Respondent should have been more prudent in issuing the certification.
- The fact that some of thewith
propertiesP2,000.
were not described with specificity in the
complaint should have warned her to make the necessary verification first before
granting the request of Angelina Gloria-Ong for a certification.
-

The fact that the person seeking the certification was a defendant in the complaint
for annulment of the deed of partition should have put her on guard.

- Instead of asking Balayo, who had nothing to do with the case, respondent should
have consulted the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 15.
.

court personnel:

CLERK OF COURT

A clerk of court, being an

essential officer in the judicial
system, is expected to be
assiduous in performing his or
her official duties.
Negligence in the
performance thereof
warrants disciplinary
action.
Simple neglect signifies a
disregard of a duty resulting
from carelessness or
indifference.

arias v. sandiganbayan
Our ruling there that heads of
offices can
relytoareasonableextenton
their subordinates and on the
good faith of those who prepare
bids, purchase supplies or enter
into negotiations is only
applicable if the facts are similar
to theAriascase

thank
you!