You are on page 1of 2

Uy v. Dizon-Capulong – Adm. Matter No.

RTJ-91-766

Facts: Judge Dizon-Capulong rendered a decision regarding the adjudication of the


estate of one Ambrocio C. Pingco filed by special administratix Hermina Alvos. In
said decision, the judge ordered the cancellation of the titles of Jose Uy to parcels
of land allegedly bought by them through fraud from the deceased. The petitioners
raised the issue to the CA which reversed the respondent Judge’s decision and
enjoined the latter from proceeding against the petitioners. Alvos sought for
reconsideration but was denied by the appellate court. Despite of the order of the
appellate Court, the respondent judge proceeded from hearing the matter and
giving favor to the petitions filed by the administratix Alvos. The SC affirmed the
decision of CA which annulled and set aside the order of the respondent Judge.
The petitioners asserted that the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of
the law by rendering a decision regarding ownership in a probate proceeding; and
gross misconduct for disobeying the lawful order of the superior courts. The
respondent judge argued that the CA did not prohibited her from proceeding
against the petitioners and reversion of the title to them.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge committed gross ignorance and


misconduct.

Held: Yes. It is a well-settled principle that judges cannot adjudicate third party or
adverse claims of a property in a probate proceeding. The court, acting as a probate
court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matter, which must be settled in a
court of general jurisdiction. Hence, the respondent’s failure to apply this principle
indicates disregard of well-known legal rules. The acts of the respondent judge in
giving orders despite of the prohibition made by superior courts and reversal of its
decision is a clear manifest of grave misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the
public, the bench and the bar.

Ali v. Bubong – Adm. Case No. 4018


Facts: Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong was holding position in the Register of Deeds of
Marawi City. An administrative complaint was charged against him for illegal
exaction, indiscriminate issuance of TCTs and manipulating the criminal complaint
filed against the respondent’s relative for violation of Anti-Squatting Law. The
LRA absolved him but the through the recommendation of the Sec. of Justice,
Pres. Ramos issued an administrative order dismissing the respondent for gross
misconduct for the imprudent issuance of TCTs and manipulating the criminal case
for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. Due to outcome of the administrative case
against respondent, the petitioner sought for the disbarment of the former
because it has become obvious that respondent had proven himself unfit to
be further entrusted with duties of an attorney and is a serious threat to the integrity
of legal profession. The respondent denied the allegations against him. After
investigation, the IBP recommended for the suspension of the respondent. Upon
the death of the petitioner, his heirs moved for the withdrawal of the
deceased petition for disbarment.

Issue: Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct


committed while he was in government service.

Held: Yes. The CPR does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has
joined the gov’t service. Canon 6.02 provides that a lawyer in gov’t service shall
not use his public position to promote or advance his private interest, not allow the
latter to interfere with his public duties.
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
disciplined as a member of the bar.