A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J - Mamiscal vs. Abdullah

Complainant Baguan M. Mamiscal filed a complaint against respondent Macalinog S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court of the Shari’a Circuit Court, Marawi City, alleging partiality, violation of due process, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a court employee in connection with the registration of his purported divorce.
The complaint initially included Judge Aboali J. Cali, who was later dismissed for lack of merit.

On September 26, 2010, Mamiscal and his wife, Adelaidah Lomondot, had a heated argument, leading Mamiscal to repudiate (talaq) his wife via an agreement (kapasadan) allegedly signed by both.
Adelaidah then left their marital home and returned to her family in Marawi City. During the obligatory waiting period (‘iddah), Mamiscal sent relatives to reconcile with her.
On February 23, 2011, Adelaidah filed an unsigned Certificate of Divorce (COD) dated September 26, 2010, with Abdullah’s office for registration, asserting Mamiscal’s talaq pronouncement. The COD was filed with the kapasadan attached.
Abdullah, in his dual capacity as Clerk of Court and Circuit Civil Registrar, issued an invitation for the couple to appear before the Shari’a Circuit Court on February 28, 2011, to constitute the Agama Arbitration Council (AAC) to explore reconciliation.
On March 24, 2011, Abdullah issued the Certificate of Registration of Divorce (CRD), finalizing the divorce.

Mamiscal moved to revoke the CRD, challenging the validity of the kapasadan, stating he did not prepare it, signed it under threat, and there were no witnesses.
He denied executing or filing the COD and maintained his intention to revoke the repudiation before the expiration of ‘iddah by notifying his wife on December 13, 2010.
He argued the divorce registration deprived him of due process, claiming the AAC was not properly constituted, reconciliation efforts were ongoing, and their children opposed the divorce.
Despite his motion, Abdullah denied revocation, stating it was his ministerial duty to register the divorce as filed, noting the absence of Adelaidah or her representatives at the February 28 hearing and that the ‘iddah period had lapsed, making the divorce final and irrevocable.

Mamiscal alleged Abdullah unlawfully processed the COD and kapasadan despite restrictions under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws that only a male Muslim spouse may file talaq divorce.
He accused Abdullah of fabricating facts about attendance at the AAC hearing, violating procedural rules by refusing to accept his motion initially, and ignoring due process rights.

Abdullah asserted his actions were ministerial, that the divorce was final due to the lapse of ‘iddah and opposition from Adelaidah, and that the unsigned COD was acceptable since accompanied by the kapasadan.
He cited the procedural failure of Mamiscal to file a proper revocation under NSO Administrative Order No. 1.
The Office of the Court Administrator found Abdullah guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine and stern warning.
Abdullah filed a motion for early resolution citing impending compulsory retirement and plea for dismissal of the complaint.

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to impose administrative sanctions against the respondent Abdullah for his acts as Circuit Registrar of Muslim divorces.
Whether Abdullah violated any law or rule by processing the COD and issuing the CRD despite the allegations of irregularities and violations of Muslim Personal Law and due process.
The proper administrative body empowered to exercise supervisory and disciplinary authority over clerks of court acting in their capacity as registrars of Muslim personal status events.