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.
Matthew Lee v. Ruth Ann Minner, in Her Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Delaware M. Jane Brady, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Delaware, 458 F.3d 194, 3rd Cir. (2006)