EN BANC

[A.C. No. 4018. March 8, 2005]

OMAR
P.
ALI, complainant,
BUBONG, respondent.

vs.

ATTY.

MOSIB

A.

DECISION
PER CURIAM:

This is a verified petition for disbarment[1] filed against Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong for
having been found guilty of grave misconduct while holding the position of Register of
Deeds of Marawi City.
It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of the administrative case
earlier filed by complainant against respondent. In said case, which was initially
investigated by the Land Registration Authority (LRA), complainant charged respondent
with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T2821 in the names of Lawan Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah, [2] Ambobae Bauduli Datu,
Matabae Bauduli Datu, Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and Amenola Bauduli Datu; and
manipulating the criminal complaint filed against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others
for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. It appears from the records that the Baudali
Datus are relatives of respondent.[3]
The initial inquiry by the LRA was resolved in favor of respondent. The investigating
officer, Enrique Basa, absolved respondent of all the charges brought against him, thus:

It is crystal clear from the foregoing that complainant not only failed to prove his case
but that he has no case at all against respondent Mosib Ali Bubong. Wherefore,
premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint against
respondent be dismissed for lack of merit and evidence.
[4]

The case was then forwarded to the Department of Justice for review and in a
report dated 08 September 1992, then Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon exonerated
respondent of the charges of illegal exaction and infidelity in the custody of documents.
He, however, found respondent guilty of grave misconduct for his imprudent issuance of
TCT No. T-2821 and manipulating the criminal case for violation of the Anti-Squatting
Law instituted against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and the latters co-accused. As a result
of this finding, Secretary Drilon recommended respondents dismissal from service.
On 26 February 1993, former President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order
No. 41 adopting in toto the conclusion reached by Secretary Drilon and ordering
respondents dismissal from government service. Respondent subsequently questioned

said administrative order before this Court through a petition for certiorari, mandamus,
and prohibition[5] claiming that the Office of the President did not have the authority and
jurisdiction to remove him from office. He also insisted that respondents[6] in that petition
violated the laws on security of tenure and that respondent Reynaldo V. Maulit, then the
administrator of the LRA committed a breach of Civil Service Rules when he abdicated
his authority to resolve the administrative complaint against him (herein respondent).
In a Resolution dated 15 September 1994, we dismissed the petition for failure on
the part of petitioner to sufficiently show that public respondent committed grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the questioned order.[7]Respondent thereafter filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied with finality in our Resolution of 15 November 1994.
On the basis of the outcome of the administrative case, complainant is now before
us, seeking the disbarment of respondent. Complainant claims that it has become
obvious that respondent had proven himself unfit to be further entrusted with the duties
of an attorney[8] and that he poses a serious threat to the integrity of the legal
profession.[9]
In his Comment, respondent maintains that there was nothing irregular with his
issuance of TCT No. T-2821 in the name of the Bauduli Datus. According to him, both
law[10] and jurisprudence support his stance that it was his ministerial duty, as the
Register of Deeds of Marawi City, to act on applications for land registration on the
basis only of the documents presented by the applicants. In the case of the Bauduli
Datus, nothing in the documents they presented to his office warranted suspicion,
hence, he was duty-bound to issue TCT No. T-2821 in their favor.
Respondent also insists that he had nothing to do with the dismissal of criminal
complaint for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law allegedly committed by Hadji Serad
Abdullah and the latters co-defendants. Respondent explains that his participation in
said case was a result of the two subpoenas duces tecum issued by the investigating
prosecutor who required him to produce the various land titles involved in said dispute.
He further claims that the dismissal of said criminal case by the Secretary of Justice
was based solely on the evidence presented by the parties. Complainants allegation,
therefore, that he influenced the outcome of the case is totally unjustified.
Through a resolution dated 26 June 1995,[11] this Court referred this matter to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Acting on this resolution, the IBP commenced the investigation of this disbarment suit.
On 23 February 1996, Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez issued the following order
relative to the transfer of venue of this case. The pertinent portion of this order
provides:

ORDER
When this case was called for hearing, both complainant and respondent appeared.
The undersigned Commissioner asked them if they are willing to have the reception of
evidence vis--vis this case be done in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur before the

president of the local IBP Chapter. Both parties agreed. Accordingly, transmit the
records of this case to the Director for Bar Discipline for appropriate action.
[12]

On 30 March 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution approving

Commissioner Fernandezs recommendation for the transfer of venue of this
administrative case and directed the Western Mindanao Region governor to designate
the local IBP chapter concerned to conduct the investigation, report, and
recommendation.[13] The IBP Resolution states:

Resolution No. XII-96-153

Adm. Case No. 4018
Omar P. Ali vs. Atty. Mosib A. Bubong
RESOLVED TO APPROVE the recommendation of Commissioner Victor C.
Fernandez for the Transfer of Venue of the above-entitled case and direct the Western
Mindanao Region Governor George C. Jabido to designate the local IBP Chapter
concerned to conduct the investigation, report and recommendation.
Pursuant to this resolution, Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino, Director for Bar Discipline,
wrote a letter dated 23 October 1996 addressed to Governor George C. Jabido,
President of IBP Cotabato Chapter requesting the latter to receive the evidence in this
case and to submit his recommendation and recommendation as directed by the IBP
Board of Governors.[14]
In an undated Report and Recommendation, the IBP Cotabato Chapter[15] informed
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) that the investigating panel [16] had sent
notices to both complainant and respondent for a series of hearings but respondent
consistently ignored said notices. The IBP Cotabato Chapter concluded its report by
recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for five years.
On 01 July 1998, respondent filed a motion dated 30 June 1998 praying for the
transmittal of the records of this case to the Marawi City-Lanao del Sur Chapter of the
IBP pursuant to Resolution No. XII-96-153 as well as Commissioner Fernandezs Order
dated 23 February 1996.
Commissioner Fernandez thereafter ordered the investigating panel of IBP
Cotabato Chapter to comment on respondents motion.[17] Complying with this directive,
the panel expressed no opposition to respondents motion for the transmittal of the
records of this case to IBP Marawi City.[18] On 25 September 1998, Commissioner
Fernandez ordered the referral of this case to IBP Marawi City for the reception of
respondents evidence.[19] This order of referral, however, was set aside by the IBP
Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XIII-98-268 issued on 4 December 1998. Said
resolution provides:

RESOLVED to DENY the ORDER of Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez for the

transmittal of the case records of the above-entitled case to Marawi City, rather he is

directed to re-evaluate the recommendation submitted by Cotabato Chapter and report

the same to the Board of Governors.
[20]

Prior to the issuance of Resolution No. XIII-98-268, respondent filed on 08 October

1998 a motion praying that the recommendation of the IBP Cotabato Chapter be
stricken from the records.[21] Respondent insists that the investigating panel constituted
by said IBP chapter did not have the authority to conduct the investigation of this case
since IBP Resolution XII-96-153 and Commissioner Fernandezs Order of 23 February
1996 clearly vested IBP Marawi City with the power to investigate this case. Moreover,
he claims that he was never notified of any hearing by the investigating panel of IBP
Cotabato Chapter thereby depriving him of his right to due process.
Complainant opposed[22] this motion arguing that respondent is guilty of laches.
According to complainant, the report and recommendation submitted by IBP Cotabato
Chapter expressly states that respondent was duly notified of the hearings conducted
by the investigating panel yet despite these, respondent did nothing to defend himself.
He also claims that respondent did not even bother to submit his position paper when
he was directed to do so. Further, as respondent is a member of IBP Marawi City
Chapter, complainant maintains that the presence of bias in favor of respondent is
possible. Finally, complainant contends that to refer the matter to IBP Marawi City
would only entail a duplication of the process which had already been completed by IBP
Cotabato Chapter.
In an Order dated 15 October 1999,[23] Commissioner Fernandez directed IBP
Cotabato Chapter to submit proofs that notices for the hearings conducted by the
investigating panel as well as for the submission of the position paper were duly
received by respondent. On 21 February 2000, Atty. Jabido, a member of the IBP
Cotabato Chapter investigating panel, furnished Commissioner Fernandez with a copy
of the panels order dated 4 August 1997.[24] Attached to said order was Registry Receipt
No. 3663 issued by the local post office. On the lower portion of the registry receipt was
a handwritten notation reading Atty. Mosib A. Bubong.
On 20 April 2001, Commissioner Fernandez ordered Atty. Pedro S. Castillo,
Chairman of the Commission on Bar Discipline for Mindanao, to reevaluate the report
and recommendation submitted by IBP Cotabato Chapter. This directive had the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors through its Resolution No. XIV-2001-271 issued
on 30 June 2001, to wit:

RESOLVED to APPROVE the recommendation of Director Victor C. Fernandez for

the Transfer of Venue of the above-entitled case and direct the CBD Mindanao to
conduct an investigation, re-evaluation, report and recommendation within sixty (60)
days from receipt of notice.
[25]

Meanwhile, Bainar A. Ali, informed the CBD Mindanao of the death of her father,
Omar P. Ali, complainant in this case. According to her, her father passed away on 12
June 2002 and that in interest of peace and Islamic brotherhood, she was requesting
the withdrawal of this case.[26]

Subsequently, respondent filed another motion, this time, asking the IBP CBD to
direct the chairman of the Commission on Bar Discipline for Mindanao to designate and
authorize the IBP Marawi City-Lanao del Sur Chapter to conduct an investigation of this
case.[27] This motion was effectively denied by Atty. Pedro S. Castillo in an Order dated
19 July 2002.[28] According to Atty. Castillo

After going over the voluminous records of the case, with special attention made on
the report of the IBP Cotabato City Chapter, the Complaint and the Counter-Affidavit
of respondent, the undersigned sees no need for any further investigation, to be able to
make a re-evaluation and recommendation on the Report of the IBP Chapter of
Cotabato City.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to authorize the IBP-Chpater of Marawi City, Zamboanga
del Norte is hereby denied. The undersigned will submit his Report to the
Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP National Office within ten (10) days from date
hereof.
In his Report and Recommendation, Atty. Castillo adopted in toto the findings and
conclusion of IBP Cotabato Chapter ratiocinating as follows:

The Complaint for Disbarment is primarily based on the Decision by the Office of the
President in Administrative Case No. 41 dated February 26, 1993, wherein herein
respondent was found guilty of Grave Misconduct in:
a)

The imprudent issuance of T.C.T. No. T-2821; and,

b)
Manipulating the criminal complaint for violation of the antisquatting law.
And penalized with dismissal from the service, as Register of Deeds of Marawi City.
In the Comment filed by respondent in the instant Adminsitrative Case, his defense is
good faith in the issuance of T.C.T. No. T-2821 and a denial of the charge of
manipulating the criminal complaint for violation of the anti-squatting law, which by
the way, was filed against respondents relatives. Going over the Decision of the
Office of the President in Administrative Case No. 41, the undersigned finds
substantial evidence were taken into account and fully explained, before the Decision
therein was rendered. In other words, the finding of Grave Misconduct on the part of
respondent by the Office of the President was fully supported by evidence and as such
carries a very strong weight in considering the professional misconduct of respondent
in the present case.
In the light of the foregoing, the undersigned sees no reason for amending or
disturbing the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Chapter of South Cotabato.

[29]

In a resolution passed on 19 October 2002, the IBP Board of Governors adopted

and approved, with modification, the afore-quoted Report and Recommendation of Atty.
Castillo. The modification pertained solely to the period of suspension from the practice
of law which should be imposed on respondent whereas Atty. Castillo concurred in the
earlier recommendation of IBP Cotabato Chapter for a five-year suspension, the IBP
Board of Governors found a two-year suspension to be proper.
On 17 January 2003, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the IBP
which the latter denied as by that time, the matter had already been endorsed to this
Court.[30]
The issue thus posed for this Courts resolution is whether respondent may be
disbarred for grave misconduct committed while he was in the employ of the
government. We resolve this question in the affirmative.
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply
because he has joined the government service. In fact, by the express provision of
Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks. Thus, where a lawyers
misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the
bar on such grounds.[31] Although the general rule is that a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for infractions he
committed as a government official, he may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his
misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the legal profession. [32]
Indeed, in the case of Collantes v. Atty. Vicente C. Renomeron,[33] we ordered the
disbarment of respondent on the ground of his dismissal from government service
because of grave misconduct. Quoting the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, we
declared

[A] person takes an oath when he is admitted to the bar which is designed to impress
upon him his responsibilities. He thereby becomes an officer of the court on whose
shoulders rests the grave responsibility of assisting the courts in the proper, fair,
speedy and efficient administration of justice. As an officer of the court he is subject
to a rigid discipline that demands that in his every exertion the only criterion be that
truth and justice triumph. This discipline is what has given the law profession its
nobility, its prestige, its exalted place. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix
Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full
candor, intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility
all of which, throughout the centuries, have been compendiously described as moral
character.
[34]

Similarly, in Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, et al. v. Atty. Felina Dasig,[35] this Court found
sufficient basis to disbar respondent therein for gross misconduct perpetrated while she
was the Officer-in-Charge of Legal Services of the Commission on Higher Education.
As we had explained in that case

 [A] lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission
which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government,
she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service
is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social
responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice. (Emphasis
supplied)
[36]

In the case at bar, respondents grave misconduct, as established by the Office of

the President and subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals 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 the rules governing land registration for the benefit of his
relatives, respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the
functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar. Rule 6.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter. It reads:

Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Respondents conduct manifestly undermined the peoples confidence in the public
office he used to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. The illconceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than
the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainants daughter,
requesting for the withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly favorably act on the same
as 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.[37] As we have previously explained in the case
of Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos:[38]

A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of

interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne
out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly
proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A
proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense 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. They are
undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to
the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person
who called the attention of the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no

sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens
may have in the proper administrative of justice.
[39]

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is hereby DISBARRED and his

name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision
be entered in the respondents record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same
be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, SandovalGutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, ChicoNazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., no part.
Carpio-Morales, J., on leave.