A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J, July 1, 2015
Baguan M. Mamiscal v. Clerk of Court Macalinog S. Abdullah, Shari’a Circuit Court, Marawi City

FACTS

Complainant Baguan M. Mamiscal and his wife, Adelaidah Lomondot, had a heated argument on September 26, 2010. Mamiscal repudiated his wife (talaq), an act embodied in a signed agreement (kapasadan). The next day, Adelaidah left their home. During the obligatory waiting period (‘iddah), Mamiscal had a change of heart and attempted reconciliation through relatives. Almost five months later, on February 23, 2011, Adelaidah filed an unsigned Certificate of Divorce (COD), dated September 26, 2010, with the office of respondent Macalinog S. Abdullah, the Clerk of Court and Circuit Civil Registrar of the Shari’a Circuit Court, Marawi City. The COD was filed together with the kapasadan. On the same day, Abdullah issued an Invitation for the parties to appear on February 28, 2011, to constitute an Agama Arbitration Council (AAC) for possible reconciliation. On March 24, 2011, Abdullah issued a Certificate of Registration of Divorce (CRD) finalizing the divorce.
Mamiscal sought revocation of the CRD, arguing the kapasadan was invalid as he did not prepare it, there were no witnesses, and he signed only due to threats. He denied executing or filing the COD and claimed he revoked the repudiation in a December 13, 2010 letter to his wife. He contended he was deprived of due process as the AAC was never constituted, and that mediation efforts were ongoing. Abdullah denied the motion, stating his duty was ministerial, that only Mamiscal appeared at the February 28 hearing, that Adelaidah opposed reconciliation in writing, and that the ‘iddah period had lapsed, making the divorce final.
Mamiscal filed an administrative complaint against Abdullah for partiality, violation of due process, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a court employee. He argued Abdullah should not have entertained the COD filed by the wife, as under the Muslim Code, a talaq divorce can only be filed by the male spouse. He alleged Abdullah fabricated facts regarding the February 28 hearing and violated Shari’a procedure by initially refusing to receive his motion for reconsideration and considering an opposition he was not furnished. Abdullah countered that his functions were ministerial, the divorce was final, the unsigned COD was accompanied by the signed kapasadan, and Mamiscal failed to formally revoke the repudiation as required by NSO rules. The Office of the Court Administrator found Abdullah guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to impose administrative sanctions against respondent Macalinog S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court of the Shari’a Circuit Court, for his acts in registering the divorce.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that it does NOT have jurisdiction to impose administrative sanctions against respondent Abdullah for his acts in connection with the registration of the divorce. The Court confined itself to this jurisdictional issue, explicitly stating that the validity of the divorce itself was not in issue and was a matter for the Shari’a Circuit Court to resolve under its exclusive original jurisdiction.
The Court held that when Abdullah acted on the divorce documents, he was performing his functions as a Circuit Civil Registrar under Article 81 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws ( P.D. No. 1083 ), not as a Clerk of Court. As a Circuit Civil Registrar, he is a local government employee appointed by the city or municipal mayor, and his office is under the administrative supervision of the local chief executive. Therefore, administrative complaints against him for acts done in his capacity as Civil Registrar fall under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the local government and the Civil Service Commission, pursuant to the Local Government Code and the Administrative Code. The Supreme Court’s administrative supervision extends only to officials and employees of the Judiciary, which does not include local civil registrars. Consequently, the complaint against Abdullah was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.