[A.C. NO.

7027 : January 30, 2009]

TANU REDDI, Complainant, v. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Tanu Reddi (American citizen) a practicing endodontist in New York, seeks the disbarment of Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr.
for deceiving her into giving USD 3M for the purchase of real estate properties for resale.

Reddi and her assistant of 10 years, Immaculada Luistro, a Filipino Citizen, visited the Philippines in 2000. Being a
philanthropist who saw poverty in the Philippines, Reddi decided to open a hospital in the Philippines.

Immaculada suggested to complainant to consider engaging in the real estate business in the Philippines in order to speed
up the generation of funds.

Reddi was introduced to Atty. Sebrio who would help her acquire real properties for development and/or resale. Since an
alien like Reddi could not acquire ownership of lands in the Philippines, Sebrio advised her to use corporate vehicles to
effect the purchases. Three corporations were thus formed - Tagaytay Twins, Inc., Manila Chic Twins, Inc., and Tanu, Inc.

Sebrio cajoled Reddi into buying several parcels of land:

1. Tagaytay City (land)

a. Purported Seller: Teresita Monzon; Area: 27 ha.
b. Sebrio prepared a Memorandum of Agreement through Tagaytay Twins, Inc.
c. Reddi agreed to finance titling (P20M) and that once titled, the property would be offered for sale,
proceeds to be divided between Reddi and Monzon.
d. Reddi made staggered payments of USD1K P2M and USD36,360 to Teresita.
e. Reddi discovered that 996sqm. Of the 27 ha. had already been purchased by Adio Properties.
2. Las Pinas City (house and lot AND a Jollibee outlet)
a. Purported Owner: Francisca Parales who needs to finance her daughter’s heart surgery
i. House and lot: Option to Purchase
b. On Reddi’s advice, Reddi obtained a franchise to operate a Jollibee food outlet, with the agreement that
out of the profits that its operation would generate, Reddi would get 50% while Sebrio and
Immaculada would share the remaining 50%.
3. Makati City (land)
a. Purported Owner: estate of Faustino Ramos via Mario Mangco (legal officer of estate)
b. Sebrio prepared a MOA. Reddi gave P10M for development and titling, back taxes, and P2M for
execution of the Makati MOA.
c. Reddi discovered later on that it was not for sale nor owned by the estate.
4. Quezon City (land)
a. Land on which SM North Mall stands
b. Purported Owner: Sebrio’s cient who is a retired US Navy employee
c. Reddi gave money to Sebrio for filing a petition for injunction against SM North Mall, paying back taxes,
and titling of the land.
5. Pasay City (land)
a. Land in Roxas blvd; Deed of Conditional Sale
b. Purported Owner: Florenda Estrada and Alma Mallari but was mortgaged to Atty. Go to secure a P5M
loan.
c. Reddi defrayed expenses, on the strength of Sebrio's representations, to secure title to the lot, settle the
mortgage obligation, relocate squatters, and bribe a judge to "close the transaction.”
d. Reddi discovered that there was no such vacant lot. The lot was titled in the names of PBC and BDO.

Sebrio’s Arguments:

1. In general:
 a. Sebrio admits receiving a total of USD544,828 used not only for the purchase of the Las Pinas
property and discharge of the mortgage thereon, but also for the setting up of the earlier mentioned
corporations, as well as for the downpayment on the Makati property and related expenses.
2. Tagaytay City
a. Sebrio admits that the Tagaytay MOA exists. But it is Reddi who wants to get out of a perfected sale in
order to recover her partial payment of P4M.
3. Las Pinas City

a. Sebrio admits having represented to Redd that the Las Pinas property belonged to Francisca.
Certificate of title and deed of sale signed by Francisca, by his claim, are in his possession; but the title
has not been transferred to Tanu, Inc., as agreed, because of Reddi's failure to provide money needed
therefor.Sebrio is also exercising his retaining lien over the Las Pinas documents.
4. Makati City
a. Sebrio claims having paid P500K to Mangco representing initial payment
5. Quezon City
a. Sebrio is willing to surrender all the documents but would do so only if Reddi is first ordered to pay
him his professional fees.
6. Pasay City
a. Sebrio denies Reddi's claims as "preposterous allegations."

IBP Commissioner: disbarment. Sebrio committed fraudulent acts which constitute violations of the lawyer’s oath and
CPR:

 CANON 1: "A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and
for legal processes."

 Estafa ( Art. 315 RPC) With unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, he misappropriated millions of pesos given
to him on his misrepresentation that such were needed for the acquisition of properties.

 Falsification as part of his fraudulent scheme when he tampered with the Articles of Incorporation of Tanu
where incorporators named were Tanu Reddi, Michael Lee, Prasuna Reddy, Ahalya Devi, and Robert Juntilla.
Reddi discovered that other names were inserted: Clarito D. Cardozo, Brian Pellazar, and Michael Angelo Lopez
were intercalated.

 Rule 1.01 of the CPR: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

o when he offered properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that complainant was
dealing with the true owners thereof.

 CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.

 Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.”

o Sebrio failed to account for money he received and failed to return the same upon demand.

 Rule 15.06 of the CPR:"A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body."

o Sebrio convinced Reddi to pay bribe money to our judges since, he claims, that it is a common practice
in the Philippines.

IBP BOG adopted Recommendation of Commissioner but modified: Sebrio to return only the amount of US$544,828 as
admitted by Sebrio that he received.
ISSUE

WON Sebrio’s acts of misrepresentation constitute volations of the CPR. YES

RULING

SC sustains the IBP Board of Governors, except its findings that Sebrio committed estafa and falsification. This is not the
proper forum to determine whether he committed these offenses.

As to Sebrio’s use of the US$544,828--the claim does not lie. All that Sebrio presented to account for the money is a
handwritten acknowledgment of a supposed partial payment of P500K for the Makati property, purportedly executed by
Mangco. This is a mere piece of paper, Mangco not having been presented, if he exists at all, to confirm that he indeed
issued the receipt.

Sebrio's justification for his non-presentation of any documents to substantiate the acquisitions - that he is exercising his
retaining lien as his professional fees have not been paid - is incredible. If those documents actually exist, and considering
that his license to practice law is on the line, Sebrio could have readily attached even photocopies.

Disbarment is in order pursuant to Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority to do so. x x x.