A.C. No.

7027 January 30, 2009

TANU REDDI, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR., Respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant was introduced to respondent who would help her acquire real
properties for development and/or resale. Since being an Indian national she
could not acquire ownership of lands in the hilippines! respondent advised
her to use corporate vehicles to effect the purchases. Three corporations
were thus formed " Taga#ta# Twins! Inc.! $anila Chic Twins! Inc.! and
Tanu! Inc. %# complainant&s account! respondent ca'oled her into bu#ing
several parcels of land located at Taga#ta# Cit#! (as i)as Cit#! $a*ati
Cit#! +ue,on Cit#! and asa# Cit#. -espondent represented to complainant
that his client Teresita $on,on .Teresita/ owned an untitled 012hectare
propert# located at Taga#ta# Cit#. Through the Taga#ta# Twins! Inc. The#
e3ecuted a $emorandum of Agreement prepared b# respondent under which
she agreed to finance the titling of the propert# in the total amount
of 04!444!444! and that once titled! the propert# would be offered for sale!
the proceeds of which would be divided equall# between her and Teresita.
Complainant was later to discover that 556 square meters of the 012hectare
propert# had been purchased b# Aldio roperties! Inc. in an e3tra'udicial
foreclosure sale! which sale Teresita challenged in an action for annulment
before the -egional Trial Court of Taga#ta# Cit#. In said action! respondent
was Teresita&s counsel of record. -espondent introduced complainant to a
certain $ario C. $angco! alleged legal officer of the intestate estate of one
Faustino -amos! which estate was alleged to be the owner of a real
propert#. Complainant having been interested in acquiring the propert#!
respondent prepared a $emorandum of Agreement with $angco and
released 74!444!444 representing the cost of development and titling of the
propert#! and pa#ment of bac* ta3es8 and an additional 0!444!444 for the
e3ecution of the $9A. Complainant was later to learn that the propert# was
neither owned b# the intestate estate of -amos nor for sale. -espondent
broached to complainant the idea of bu#ing the land on which S$ :orth
$all stands! he representing that it belongs to his client! purportedl# a retired
;S :av# emplo#ee who resides in $indanao. Complainant assented and
transmitted large sums of mone# to respondent. Again complainant sent
respondent heft# amounts of mone# for the purchase of a vacant lot located
along -o3as %oulevard! alleged to belong to Florenda <strada and Alma
$allari! but which was mortgaged to one Att#. =o. She also defra#ed
e3penses! on the strength of respondent&s representations! to secure title to
the lot! settle the mortgage obligation! relocate squatters on the lot! and bribe
a 'udge to >close the transaction. %ut subsequentl# discovered that there was
no such vacant lot along -o3as %oulevard8 instead! she found out that the
>vacant lot> referred to was titled in the names of hilippine %an* of
Communications and %anco ?e 9ro ;niversal %an*.
Complainant&s counsel demanded from respondent the return of the amount
of ;S@A!444!444! claimed to be part of the total sum of mone# she had sent
to him for all the transactions that did not come about. :o amount has been
returned to complainant. -espondent merel# denied the allegations and
failed to appear on the mandator# conference The I% found him guilt# of
violating his oath and several canons thus recommended that respondent be
disbarred.
ISS;<:
Bhether or not respondents violated his oath and is still fit to be a member
of the bar.
C<(?:
All that respondent presented to account for the mone# is a handwritten
ac*nowledgment of a supposed partial pa#ment of D44!444 for the $a*ati
propert#! purportedl# e3ecuted b# one $angco. %# an# standard! this
document is a mere piece of paper! $angco not having been presented! if he
e3ists at all! to confirm that he indeed issued the receipt. Since respondent
failed to credibl# account! upon demand! for the mone# held b# him in trust!
an element of misappropriation! complainant&s claim that respondent
emplo#ed deceit on her is established. -espondent&s culpabilit# is further
highlighted b# his utter lac* of regard for the seriousness of the charges
against him. Cis defenses raised in his Comment consist mainl# in bare
denials. Bhen the integrit# of a member of the bar is challenged! it is not
enough that he denies the charges against him8 he must meet the issue and
overcome the evidence against him.

Ce must show proof that he still
maintains that degree of moralit# and integrit# which at all times is e3pected
of him.

This! respondent miserabl# failed to do. A member of the bar ma#
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorne# b# the Supreme Court
for an# deceit! malpractice! or other gross misconduct in such office! grossl#
immoral conduct! or b# reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude! or for an# violation of the oath which he is required to ta*e before
admission to practice! or for a willful disobedience of an# lawful order of a
superior court! or for corruptl# or willfull# appearing as an attorne# for a
part# to a case without authorit# to do so. To
reiterate! b# his own admission! respondent received a total of ;S@DEE!F0F
from complainant! which he could not properl# account for. The
orchestrated manner in which he carried out his fraudulent scheme! in
connivance with other persons! and b# ta*ing advantage of complainant&s
naivete in the wor*ings of the real estate business in the hilippines! depict a
man whose character falls wa#! wa# short of the e3acting standards required
of him as a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Thus! respondent
is no longer fit to remain as such.