SULTAN PANDAGARANAO A. ILUPA V. MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH
A.M. No. SCC-11-16-P (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 10-33-SCC [P]), [June 01, 2011]
FACTS:
The complainant alleges in support of the chargethat the respondent exhibited ignorance of his duties as clerk of court when he issued a certificate of divorce, (OCRG Form No. 102) relying mainly on an illegal “Kapasadan” or Agreement. He claims that the agreement was executed under duress and intimidation; the certificate of divorce itself is defective and unreliable as there were erroneous entries in the document and unfilled blanks. He claims that the respondent took away his beautiful wife by force or had a personal interest in her.
The respondent argues that contrary to the complainant’s claim, there was a divorce agreement, in the Maranao dialect, attached to the divorce certificate. The complainant even signed both pages of the agreement. Although the agreement was not labeled as such, its essence indicates that the couple agreed to have a divorce and it was so understood also by their children and the witnesses who signed the agreement. He also denies that he took the complainant’s wife by force or that he was interested in her; he claims that no evidence was ever adduced to prove these allegations. With the divorce agreement, Mrs. Ilupa applied for a certificate of divorce which he issued under Divorce Registry No. 2009-027 on November 5, 2009. He points out that in issuing the certificate of divorce, he observed the same procedure applied to all applicants or registrants.
On the complainant’s claim that there is no divorce in the Philippines, the respondent points out that this is true only as far as the civil law is concerned, but not under the Muslim Law which recognizes divorce. The civil marriage they subsequently entered into was just an affirmation of their marriage vows under the Muslim Law. Also, the court’s dismissal of the complainant’s petition for restitution of marital rights affirmed the divorce between the Ilupa couple.
ISSUE:
W/N The issuance of a certificate of divorce is within the Clerk of Court’s duties, as defined by law.
HELD:
Yes. The issuance of a certificate of divorce is within the respondent’s duties, as defined by law. The Clerk of Court merely performed his ministerial duty in accordance with the foregoing provisions. The alleged erroneous entries on the Certificate of Divorce cannot be attributed to respondent Clerk of Court considering that it is only his duty to receive, file and register the certificate of divorce presented to him for registration. Further, even if there were indeed erroneous entries on the certificate of divorce, such errors cannot be corrected nor cancelled through [his] administrative complaint.
The allegation that the respondent Clerk of Court manipulated the dismissal of his petition for restitution of marital rights, we find the same unsubstantiated. Aside from complainant’s bare allegation, there was no substantial evidence presented to prove the charge. It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail.
