A.C. No.

7027 January 30, 2009

TANU REDDI, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR., Respondent.
Tanu Reddi (complainant), an American citizen of Indian descent and a
practicing endodontist in New York, seeks te dis!arment of Att". #iosdado
$. %e!rio, &r. (respondent) for allegedl" deceiving er into giving im a total
of '%( ),***,*** for te purpose of, among oter tings, purcasing several
real estate properties for resale.
+rom te records of te case, te following facts are gatered,
Taking after er parents wo ad !een involved in various carita!le
activities in India, complainant nurtured pilantropic desires of er own
consisting primaril" in opening a ospital wit modern facilities in an
underdeveloped part of Asia.
-
Togeter wit Immaculada .uistro (Immaculada), a +ilipino citizen,
/
wo
was er assistant of over -* "ears, complainant visited te 0ilippines for
te first time in /***. Noting te level of povert" in te countr" and te lack
of medical services for te poor,
)
se decided to put up a ospital.
1
Immaculada suggested to complainant to consider engaging in te real estate
!usiness in te 0ilippines in order to speed up te generation of
funds.
2
3eeding te suggestion, complainant returned to te 0ilippines in
/**) to e4plore opportunities in te real estate !usiness.
5
$omplainant was introduced to respondent wo would elp er ac6uire real
properties for development and7or resale. %ince se could not ac6uire
ownersip of lands in te 0ilippines, respondent advised er to use
corporate veicles to effect te purcases. Tree corporations were tus
formed 8 Taga"ta" Twins, Inc., 9anila $ic Twins, Inc., and Tanu, Inc.
:
;" complainant<s account, respondent ca=oled er into !u"ing several
parcels of land located at Taga"ta" $it", .as 0i>as $it", 9akati $it",
?uezon $it", and 0asa" $it". %e related te details surrounding te
intended ac6uisition of propert" as follows,
Re te Taga"ta" $it" 0ropert"
Respondent represented to complainant tat is client Teresita 9onzon
(Teresita) owned an untitled /:@ectare propert" located at Taga"ta" $it".
Troug te Taga"ta" Twins, Inc., complainant and Teresita e4ecuted a
9emorandum of Agreement dated 9arc /-, /**) (Taga"ta"
9AA)
B
prepared !" respondent under wic se agreed to finance te titling
of te propert" in te total amount of 0/*,***,***, and tat once titled, te
propert" would !e offered for sale, te proceeds of wic would !e divided
e6uall" !etween er and Teresita. $omplainant tereupon made staggered
pa"ments of '%(-,***, 0/,***,***, and '%()5,)5* to Teresita.
C
$omplainant was later to discover tat CC5 s6uare meters of te /:@ectare
propert" ad !een purcased !" Aldio 0roperties, Inc. in an e4tra=udicial
foreclosure sale, wic sale Teresita callenged in an action for annulment
!efore te Regional Trial $ourt of Taga"ta" $it". In said action, respondent
was Teresita<s counsel of record.
-*
Re te .as 0i>as $it" 0ropert"
Respondent offered to complainant te option to purcase a ouse and lot
located at .as 0i>as $it", wic were encum!ered !" a mortgage, and wic
respondent represented as owned and !eing sold !" one +rancisca 0arales
(+rancisca)
--
to finance an urgentl" needed eart surger" of er daugter.
-/
An respondent<s advice, complainant o!tained a francise to operate a
&olli!ee food outlet, wit te agreement tat out of te profits tat its
operation would generate, se would get 2*D wile respondent and
Immaculada would sare te remaining 2*D.
-)
$omplainant tus sent
respondent sums of mone" for te ac6uisition of !ot te .as 0i>as propert"
and a francise to operate a &olli!ee outlet.
-1
Re te 9akati $it" 0ropert"
Respondent introduced complainant to a certain 9ario $. 9angco
(9angco), alleged legal officer of te intestate estate of one +austino Ramos
(Ramos), wic estate was alleged to !e te owner of a real propert" located
at te consular area ad=acent to +or!es 0ark in 9akati $it".
-2
$omplainant
aving !een interested in ac6uiring te propert", respondent prepared a
9emorandum of Agreement (9akati 9AA) wic se, togeter wit
9angco, forged on 9arc /*, /**1.
-5
'nder te 9akati 9AA, complainant agreed to, as se did,
release 0-*,***,*** representing te cost of development and titling of te
propert", and pa"ment of !ack ta4esE and an additional 0/,***,*** for te
e4ecution of te 9akati 9AA.
$omplainant was later to learn tat te propert" was neiter owned !" te
intestate estate of Ramos nor for sale.
Re te ?uezon $it" 0ropert"
Respondent !roaced to complainant te idea of !u"ing te land on wic
%9 Nort 9all in ?uezon $it" stands, e representing tat it !elongs to is
client, purportedl" a retired '% Nav" emplo"ee wo resides in
9indanao.
-:
$omplainant assented and transmitted large sums of mone" to
respondent for te purpose of, among oter tings, filing a petition for
in=unction against %9 Nort 9all, pa"ing !ack ta4es, and titling of te
land.
-B
Re te 0asa" $it" 0ropert"
$omplainant sent respondent eft" amounts of mone" for te purcase of a
vacant lot located along Ro4as ;oulevard in 0asa" $it", alleged to !elong to
+lorenda Fstrada (+lorenda) and Alma 9allari (Alma), !ut wic was
mortgaged to one Att". Go to secure a loan of 02,***,***.
-C
%e also
defra"ed e4penses, on te strengt of respondent<s representations, to secure
title to te lot, settle te mortgage o!ligation, relocate s6uatters on te lot,
and !ri!e a =udge to Hclose te transaction.H
/*
$omplainant su!se6uentl" discovered tat tere was no suc vacant lot
along Ro4as ;oulevard in 0asa" $it"E instead, se found out tat te Hvacant
lotH referred to was titled in te names of 0ilippine ;ank of
$ommunications (0;$) and ;anco #e Aro 'niversal ;ank (;#A).
/-
In ligt of te foregoing developments, complainant<s counsel, !" letter
dated #ecem!er -C, /**2,
//
demanded from respondent te return of te
amount of '%(),***,***, claimed to !e part of te total sum of mone" se
ad sent to im for all te transactions tat did not come a!out. No amount
as !een returned to complainant.
3ence, spawned te filing on &anuar" /:, /**5
/)
of te present complaint for
dis!arment against respondent.
;" is $omment, respondent admits receiving a total of '%(211,B/B from
complainant
/1
wic amount e claims was used not onl" for te purcase of
te .as 0i>as propert" and discarge of te mortgage tereon, !ut also for
te setting up of te earlier mentioned corporations, as well as for te
downpa"ment on te 9akati propert" and related e4penses.
/2
Respondent likewise admits aving represented to complainant tat te .as
0i>as $it" propert" !elonged to one +rancisca,
/5
certificate of title to wic
and te corresponding deed of sale signed !" +rancisca, !" is claim, are in
is possessionE !ut te title as not !een transferred to Tanu, Inc., as agreed,
in view of complainant<s failure to provide te mone" needed terefor, e
adding tat e is also e4ercising is retaining lien over te .as 0i>as
documents.
/:
%pecificall" wit respect to te 9akati propert", respondent claims aving
paid 02**,*** to 9angco representing initial pa"ment
/B
tereof.
Regarding te Taga"ta" $it" propert", respondent admits tat te Taga"ta"
9AA e4ists, and avers tat it is complainant wo wants to get out of a
perfected sale in order to recover er partial pa"ment amounting to
appro4imatel" 01,***,***.
/C
Iit respect to te ?uezon $it" propert", respondent states tat e is
willing to surrender all te documents pertaining tereto, !ut would do so
onl" if complainant is first ordered to pa" im is professional fees.
)*
As for te 0asa" $it" propert", respondent denies complainant<s claims
tereon as mere Hpreposterous allegations.H
+ollowing te filing !" complainant of er Repl", te $ourt referred te case
to te Integrated ;ar of te 0ilippines (I;0) for investigation, report and
recommendation7decision !" Resolution of &anuar" //, /**:.
)-
At te mandator" conference sceduled !" te I;0 $ommission on ;ar
#iscipline on %eptem!er -), /**: !efore $ommissioner .olita A.
?uisum!ing (te $ommissioner),
)/
respondent failed to appear despite
notice. 3e instead sent a representative wo sougt a resetting as, allegedl",
respondent was in Ilocos attending to an important famil" matter.
))
Te
$ommissioner, finding respondent<s a!sence ine4cusa!le, given tat e ad
ample time to file a motion for resetting !ut e did not, considered
respondent to ave waived is rigt to participate in te
proceedings.
)1
$omplainant tereupon presented evidence e4@parte and
su!mitted er position paper.
)2
In er Report and Recommendation
)5
su!mitted to te I;0 ;oard of
Governors on #ecem!er -1, /**:, te $ommissioner found respondent to
ave committed fraudulent acts wic constitute violations of te law"er<s
oat and numerous provisions of te $ode of 0rofessional Responsi!ilit"
($0R), viz,
-. Respondent violated $ANAN - wic states, HA law"er sall upold te
$onstitution, o!e" te laws of te land and promote respect for te law and
for legal processes.H
Respondent committed estafa punisa!le under Art. )-2 of te Revised
0enal $ode. Iit unfaitfulness and a!use of confidence, e
misappropriated millions of pesos wic was JsicK given to im on is
misrepresentation tat suc were needed for te ac6uisition of te
aforementioned properties.
Respondent also committed an unlawful act (i.e., falsification as part of is
fraudulent sceme) wen e tampered wit te Articles of Incorporation of
Tanu, Inc.. A perusal of te Articles of Incorporation given !" respondent to
complainant sows tat te incorporators are Tanu Reddi, 9icael .ee,
0rasuna Redd", Aal"a #evi, and Ro!ert &untilla. Ien complainant
o!tained a cop" of te same in %eptem!er /**2, se discovered tat oter
names were inserted. Te names of respondent, $larito #. $ardozo, ;rian
0ellazar, and 9icael Angelo .opez were intercalated. (F4i!it HIH)
/. 3e likewise violated Rule -.*- of te $0R wic provides, HA law"er
sall not engage in unlawful, disonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.H
3e engaged in unlawful, disonest and deceitful conduct wen e offered
properties for sale to complainant on temisrepresentation tat complainant
was dealing wit te true owners tereof. Tis is ver" clear from te
documents e asked complainant to signE namel", te 9emorandum of
Agreement (F4i!it H#H) for te Taga"ta" propert", #eed of $onditional
%ale (F4i!it H'H) for te 0asa" $it" propert", and 9emorandum of
Agreement (F4i!it H9H) for te 9akati $it" propert". Te certificates of
title, ta4 declaration and oter documents o!tained !" complainant from te
various government agencies reveal tat all tese properties aforementioned
were eiterfictitious, not suscepti!le to sale, simulated, or ine4istent.
). Respondent violated $anon -5 and Rule -5.*- of te $0R wic state,
H$ANAN -5 8 A law"er sall old in trust all mone"s and properties of is
client tat ma" come into is possession.
Rule -5.*- 8 A law"er sall account for all mone" or propert" collected or
received for or from te client.H
3e failed to account for te sums of mone" e received from complainant
and failed to return te same upon demand. ($op" of demand letter dated -C
#ecem!er /**2, F4i!it HTH)
1. Respondent violated Rule -2.*5 of te $0R wic provides,
HA law"er sall not state or impl" tat e is a!le to influence an" pu!lic
official, tri!unal or legislative !od".H
3e convinced complainant to pa" !ri!e mone" to our =udges since, e
claims, tat it is a common practice in te 0ilippines.
):
('nderscoring
supplied)
Te $ommissioner tus recommended tat respondent !e dis!arredE tat is
name !e ordered stricken from te roll of attorne"sE and tat e !e ordered to
return te total amount of '%(),***,*** to complainant.
;" Resolution of &anuar" -:, /**B,
)B
te I;0 ;oard of Governors adopted
and approved te Report and Recommendation of te $ommissioner, wit
te modification tat respondent was ordered to return onl" te admitted
amount e received from complainant ('%(211,B/B), witout pre=udice to
complainant<s recover" of te oter amounts claimed in te appropriate
forum.
Te $ourt sustains te I;0 ;oard of Governors, e4cept its
findings7conclusion tat respondent committed estafa and falsification. Tis
is not te proper forum to determine weter e committed tese offenses.
Te $ourt finds, owever, tat respondent<s disonest and deceitful conduct
wit respect to te intended transactions, real propert" ac6uisitions wic
turned out to !e !ogus, is sufficientl" esta!lised.
It !ears empasis tat respondent admits aving received from complainant
at least '%(211,B/B. 3e claims, owever, tat te amount was used for te
purcase of te .as 0i>as propert" and te discarge of te mortgage
tereon, te setting up of te corporations earlier mentioned, and te
downpa"ment on te 9akati propert" and related representation e4penses
terefor. Te $ourt finds tat te claim does not lie.
All tat respondent presented to account for te mone" is a andwritten
acknowledgment of a supposed partial pa"ment of 02**,*** for te 9akati
propert", purportedl" e4ecuted !" one 9angco.
)C
;" an" standard, tis
document is a mere piece of paper, 9angco not aving !een presented, if e
e4ists at all, to confirm tat e indeed issued te receipt. %ince respondent
failed to credi!l" account, upon demand, for te mone" eld !" im in trust
8 an element of misappropriation
1*
8 complainant<s claim tat respondent
emplo"ed deceit on er is esta!lised.
Respondent<s culpa!ilit" is furter igligted !" is utter lack of regard for
te seriousness of te carges against im. 3is defenses raised in is
$omment consist mainl" in !are denials. Ien te integrit" of a mem!er of
te !ar is callenged, it is not enoug tat e denies te carges against imE
e must meet te issue and overcome te evidence against im.
1-
3e must
sow proof tat e still maintains tat degree of moralit" and integrit" wic
at all times is e4pected of im.
1/
Tis, respondent misera!l" failed to do.
Respondent<s =ustification for is non@presentation of an" documents to
su!stantiate te so@called propert" ac6uisitions 8 tat e is e4ercising is
retaining lien over tem as, allegedl", is professional fees ave not !een
paid 8 is incredi!le.
If tose documents actuall" e4ist, and considering tat is license to practice
law is on te line, respondent could ave readil" attaced even potocopies
tereof to is $omment in order to lend a sem!lance of credi!ilit" to is
claim. 3is Hretaining lienH claim remains =ust tat. Iorse, it onl" amounts to
an admission tat e acted as counsel for complainantE "et, e completel"
failed to sow tat in is dealings on er !ealf, e put er interests !efore
is.
As to te recommended penalt" of dis!arment, te $ourt finds te same to
!e in order.
%ection /:, Rule -)B of te Rules of $ourt provides,
A mem!er of te !ar ma" !e dis!arred or suspended from is office as
attorne" !" te %upreme $ourt for an" deceit, malpractice, or oter gross
misconduct in suc office, grossl" immoral conduct, or !" reason of is
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for an" violation of te
oat wic e is re6uired to take !efore admission to practice, or for a
willful diso!edience of an" lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptl"
or willfull" appearing as an attorne" for a part" to a case witout autorit" to
do so. 4 4 4.
To reiterate, !" is own admission, respondent received a total of
'%(211,B/B from complainant, wic e could not properl" account for.
Te orcestrated manner in wic e carried out is fraudulent sceme, in
connivance wit oter persons, and !" taking advantage of complainant<s
naivete in te workings of te real estate !usiness in te 0ilippines, depict a
man wose caracter falls wa", wa" sort of te e4acting standards re6uired
of im as a mem!er of te !ar and an officer of te court. Tus, respondent
is no longer fit to remain as suc.
Te $ourt is mindful tat dis!arment is te most severe form of disciplinar"
sanction and, as suc, te power to dis!ar must alwa"s !e e4ercised wit
great caution, and onl" for te most imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting te standing and moral caracter of te law"er as an
officer of te court and a mem!er of te !ar.
1)
If te practice of law,
owever, is to remain an onora!le profession and attain its !asic ideals,
tose enrolled in its ranks sould not onl" master its tenets and principles
!ut sould also, in teir lives, accord continuing fidelit" to tem.
11
Te
re6uirement of good moral caracter is, in fact, of muc greater import, as
far as te general pu!lic is concerned, tan te possession of legal learning.
12
Te $ourt also sustains te order of te I;0 for respondent to return onl" te
amount of '%(211,B/B. Iile complainant su!mitted documents sowing
er !ank remittances involving different sums of mone", some of tese
remittances were not made in te name of respondent.
15
And as complainant
erself declares, te amount of '%(),***,*** is a mere estimate of er total
claim.
1:
Tus, onl" te return of te admitted amount of '%(211,B/B is in
order. As reflected a!ove, complainant is not precluded from litigating er
claim for an" !alance due er in te proper forum.
I3FRF+ARF, respondent #iosdado $. %e!rio, &r. is #I%;ARRF#, and is
name is AR#FRF# %TRI$LFN from te Roll of Attorne"s. 3e is
AR#FRF# TA RFT'RN to complainant te amount of '%(211,B/B. .et a
cop" of tis #ecision !e entered in is record as a mem!er of te ;arE and
let notice of te same !e served on te Integrated ;ar of te 0ilippines, and
on te Affice of te $ourt Administrator for circulation to all courts in te
countr".
%A AR#FRF#.