Ali v. Bubong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Omar P. Ali filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong, then the Register of Deeds of Marawi City. The charges included illegal exaction, indiscriminate issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2821 in the names of Lawan Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah, Ambobae Bauduli Datu, Matabae Bauduli Datu, Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and Amenola Bauduli Datu (who were relatives of respondent), and manipulating a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law filed against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others. Procedural History: The Land Registration Authority (LRA) initially absolved respondent. However, upon review, then Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon found respondent guilty of grave misconduct for the imprudent issuance of TCT No. T-2821 and manipulating the criminal case, recommending his dismissal from service. Former President Fidel V. Ramos adopted this conclusion through Administrative Order No. 41, ordering respondent's dismissal. Respondent questioned this administrative order before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition (G.R. No. 112839), which was dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion, and his motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. Based on these findings, complainant initiated the present disbarment petition. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter. Although an initial order transferred the venue to the IBP Marawi City Chapter, the IBP Cotabato Chapter conducted hearings and recommended a five-year suspension after respondent allegedly ignored notices. Respondent's subsequent motions to transfer venue and strike the Cotabato report were denied by the IBP Board of Governors, which eventually adopted the Cotabato findings, modifying the recommended suspension to two years. During the proceedings, complainant Omar P. Ali passed away, and his daughter requested the withdrawal of the case. The Petition: Complainant Omar P. Ali sought the disbarment of Atty. Mosib A. Bubong, asserting that respondent's proven grave misconduct while serving as Register of Deeds rendered him unfit to be entrusted with the duties of an attorney and posed a serious threat to the integrity of the legal profession. Respondent, in his defense, maintained that the issuance of TCT No. T-2821 was a ministerial duty based on the documents presented and denied manipulating the criminal case, claiming his involvement was limited to responding to subpoenas duces tecum. He also raised concerns about being deprived of due process during the IBP investigation, specifically regarding notification of hearings.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while in government service. Whether the death of the complainant and the subsequent request for withdrawal of the case should terminate the disbarment proceedings.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court resolved this question in the affirmative, holding that the Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has joined the government service. Canon 6 explicitly states that the rules governing the conduct of lawyers "shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks." Thus, where a lawyer's misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds. The Court found that respondent's grave misconduct, as established by the Office of the President and affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 112839, dealt directly with his qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage of his office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of land registration rules for the benefit of his relatives, respondent clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar. This conduct manifestly violated Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers in government service from using their public position to promote or advance private interests or allowing the latter to interfere with public duties. The Court cited Collantes v. Atty. Vicente C. Renomeron and Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, et al. v. Atty. Felina Dasig to emphasize that dismissal from government service for grave misconduct is a sufficient basis for disbarment, as such actions undermine public confidence and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainant's daughter, requesting for the withdrawal of this case, cannot be favorably acted upon. The Court reiterated that proceedings of this nature cannot be "interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same," as provided by Rule 139-B, Section 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. As explained in Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, a case of suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance; they are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court, and the complainant is in no sense a party, having generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Therefore, the death of the complainant did not warrant the termination of the disbarment proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The Code of Professional Responsibility extends its application to lawyers in government service, mandating that their conduct in official tasks adheres to its rules. Misconduct by a lawyer as a government official, particularly if it demonstrates moral delinquency or affects their qualification as a lawyer, serves as a valid ground for disciplinary action, including disbarment. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are not private civil actions but are undertaken for the public welfare, meaning they cannot be terminated or interrupted by the desistance, settlement, or even the death of the complainant, as the primary objective is to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.