Ali Vs Bubong Digest Ea

Ali vs Bubong
*
A.C. No. 4018. March 8, 2005.
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 (Bubong) 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 latter’s co-accused. As a result of this finding, Secretary Drilon
recommended respondent’s 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 respondent’s dismissal
from government service. Respondent subsequently questioned said administrative order before
5
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
6
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).
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
7
issuing the questioned order.” 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
8
had “proven himself unfit to be further entrusted with the duties of an attorney” and that he
9
poses a “serious threat to the integrity of the legal profession.”
The issue thus posed for this Court’s 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 lawyer’s 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
31
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
32
constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the legal profession.
In the case at bar, respondent’s 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.
Respondent’s conduct manifestly undermined the people’s 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.
Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005.*

Ali Vs Bubong Digest Ea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ali Vs Bubong Digest Ea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ali Vs Bubong Digest Ea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ali vs Bubong

Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Sandiganbayan

You might also like