[A.C. No. 4018.

March 8, 2005]

OMAR P. ALI, complainant, vs. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG, respondent.

DECISION
PER CURIAM:

This is a verified petition for disbarment 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.
[1]

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. T-2821 in the names of Lawan
Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah, 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.
[2]

[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 claiming that the Office of the President did not have the authority
and jurisdiction to remove him from office. He also insisted that
respondents 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).
[5]

[6]

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.
Respondent thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied
with finality in our Resolution of 15 November 1994.
[7]

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 and that he poses a serious
threat to the integrity of the legal profession.
[8]

[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 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.
[10]

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, 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:
[11]

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. The IBP Resolution states:
[13]

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 informed the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) that the
investigating panel 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.
[15]

[16]

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. 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. On 25 September
1998, Commissioner Fernandez ordered the referral of this case to IBP
Marawi City for the reception of respondents evidence. 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:
[17]

[18]

[19]

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. 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.
[21]

Complainant opposed 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.
[22]

In an Order dated 15 October 1999, 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. 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.
[23]

[24]

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. This motion was effectively denied by
Atty. Pedro S. Castillo in an Order dated 19 July 2002. According to Atty.
Castillo
[27]

[28]

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 anti-squatting

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. 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.
[31]

[32]

Indeed, in the case of Collantes v. Atty. Vicente C. Renomeron, 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
[33]

[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, 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
[35]

[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 ill-conceived 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. As we have
previously explained in the case of Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A.
Rayos:
[37]

[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.