Monday, March 9, 2009

Greed

Greed is a rootcause of human suffering. Many lawyers succumb to this weakness. Blinded by momentary economic gain, they recklessely gamble away their licenses to practice the legal profession, thus, forever destroying the future of their career and shamelessly besmirching whatever is left of their individual honor.

In the recent case of TANU REDDI vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR., EN BANC, A.C. No. 7027, January 30, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court ordered the respondent Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. DISBARRED and his name STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

He was further ORDERED TO RETURN to the complainant the amount of US$544,828.

May I digest the salient parts of the said decision, for purposes of legal ethics-related research of the visitors of this blog. Thus:


“x x x.

Tanu Reddi (complainant), an American citizen of Indian descent and a practicing endodontist in New York, seeks the disbarment of Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. (respondent) for allegedly deceiving her into giving him a total of US$ 3,000,000 for the purpose of, among other things, purchasing several real estate properties for resale.

X x x.

In her Report and Recommendation submitted to the IBP Board of Governors on December 14, 2007, the Commissioner found respondent to have committed fraudulent acts which constitute violations of the lawyer’s oath and numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), viz:

1. Respondent violated CANON 1 which states: “A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and for legal processes.”

Respondent committed estafa punishable under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. With unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, he misappropriated millions of pesos which was [sic] given to him on his misrepresentation that such were needed for the acquisition of the aforementioned properties.

Respondent also committed an unlawful act (i.e., falsification as part of his fraudulent scheme) when he tampered with the Articles of Incorporation of Tanu, Inc.. A perusal of the Articles of Incorporation given by respondent to complainant shows that the incorporators are Tanu Reddi, Michael Lee, Prasuna Reddy, Ahalya Devi, and Robert Juntilla. When complainant obtained a copy of the same in September 2005, she discovered that other names were inserted. The names of respondent, Clarito D. Cardozo, Brian Pellazar, and Michael Angelo Lopez were intercalated. (Exhibit “W”)

2. He likewise violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

He engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he offered properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that complainant was dealing with the true owners thereof. This is very clear from the documents he asked complainant to sign; namely, the Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit “D”) for the Tagaytay property, Deed of Conditional Sale (Exhibit “U”) for the Pasay City property, and Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit “M”) for the Makati City property. The certificates of title, tax declaration and other documents obtained by complainant from the various government agencies reveal that all these properties aforementioned were either fictitious, not susceptible to sale, simulated, or inexistent.

2. Respondent violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the CPR which state:

“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.”

He failed to account for the sums of money he received from complainant and failed to return the same upon demand. (Copy of demand letter dated 19 December 2005, Exhibit “T”)

4. Respondent violated Rule 15.06 of the CPR which provides:

“A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.”

He convinced complainant to pay bribe money to our judges since, he claims, that it is a common practice in the Philippines. (Underscoring supplied)


X x x.


As to the recommended penalty of disbarment, the Court finds the same to be in order.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

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.


To reiterate, by his own admission, respondent received a total of US$544,828 from complainant, which he could not properly account for. The orchestrated manner in which he carried out his fraudulent scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by taking advantage of complainant’s naivete in the workings of the real estate business in the Philippines, depict a man whose character falls way, way short of the exacting 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.

The Court is mindful that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, and only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. If the practice of law, however, is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.

X x x.”