Source: From my special friends =)

SC: Courts May Still Receive Petitions for Correction of Clerical Errors in Civil
Registry
Trial courts still have jurisdiction over petitions for correction of clerical errors in the civil
registry, notwithstanding the enactment of RA 9048, the law authorizing local civil registrars to
correct clerical errors in an entry and change the first name in a civil registry in administrative
proceedings
!n a "4#page decision penned $y %ustice &ante ' Tinga, the (upreme )ourt En Banc clarified
the effect of RA 9048 while finding retired %udge )esar * (otero of the Regional Trial )ourt
+RT), of -ani.ui, Tarlac guilty of gross ignorance of the law The )ourt held that what local
civil registrars have is primary, not e/clusive, jurisdiction over such petitions, with RA 9048
prescri$ing the procedures that petitioners and local registrars should follow
The )ourt said that when such petitions are filed $efore the regular courts, the procedural
re.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, lawma0ers had no intention of divesting trial courts of
the authority to ma0e judicial correction of entries in the civil registry as there was no mention
that such petitions could no longer $e filed with the trial courts 1!n fact, it was clarified that the
grounds upon which the administrative process $efore the local civil registrar may $e availed of
are limited under the law2 hence, outside of such limited grounds, the judicial process should $e
availed of,3 said the )ourt
(otero was fined -h-40,000 for having acted on more than 400 cases for corrections of entries
filed $efore the RT) of -ani.ui without fully complying with the procedural re.uirements under
the Rules of )ourt The )ourt said that (otero5s contention that he applied the procedure for
correction of entries under RA 9048 instead of that under the Rules was without merit as it was
shown 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 $y (otero involved su$stantial
changes in the registry such as change of age, status, se/, and nationality, which do not fall
within the purview of RA 9048 +A* 6o 07#8#494#RT), Re: Final Report on the Judicial
Audit Conducted at the RTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, 'cto$er 99, "008,