A.C. No. 7973, 10457 - Garcia vs. Sesbreno

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7973, 10457)

Petitioner’s Allegations

Garcia alleged he married Virginia Alcantara in 1965, they separated in 1971 and their marriage was later annulled. Garcia claimed that in 2005 respondent, acting for Garcia’s daughters, filed a support action against him (dismissed), and later filed further pleadings after Garcia’s return from Japan in 2007. Garcia charged that respondent had been previously convicted of homicide and was then on parole, and that homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude rendering respondent unfit to practice law.

Respondent’s Position

Sesbreão denied that the complaint merited disbarment, asserting the complaints were motivated by malice and retaliation for his representation of Garcia’s daughters. He contended his sentence had been commuted and that any accessory penalties were deleted or inapplicable. He maintained that homicide does not necessarily involve moral turpitude and argued that disqualification, if any, applied only during the term of the sentence. He also claimed executive clemency restored his civil and political rights.

Key Dates and Procedural History

Two complaints were filed: one before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) on 29 July 2008 (CBC Case No. 08‑2273, later redocketed A.C. No. 10457) and another before the Office of the Bar Confidant on 30 July 2008 (A.C. No. 7973). The Court referred A.C. No. 7973 to the IBP for investigation on 18 January 2010. The IBP‑CBD issued a report and recommendation adopted by the IBP Board of Governors (Resolution No. XX‑2013‑19) on 12 February 2013; a motion for reconsideration was filed; the IBP Board denied reconsideration by Resolution No. XX‑2014‑31 dated 11 February 2014. The Court consolidated the two cases by resolution dated 30 September 2014 and rendered its decision affirming disbarment.

Applicable Law

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended by the Court by reason of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court applied the 1987 Constitution in its analysis of executive clemency, specifically Section 19, Article VII, which contemplates reprieves, commutations, pardons, and remission of fines and forfeitures. The Court relied on established definitions and precedents regarding moral turpitude and the effect of executive clemency.

Controlling Issue

The sole issue agreed upon and resolved was whether a conviction for the crime of homicide, as adjudicated in respondent’s criminal case, involved moral turpitude sufficient to warrant disbarment.

IBP‑CBD Findings and Recommendation

The IBP‑CBD recognized that homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on circumstances. Reviewing this Court’s criminal decision, the IBP‑CBD concluded that the particular facts showed moral turpitude: the victims were not foes nor had they wronged respondent; the killings arose from respondent’s disproportionate, vindictive and cruel conduct, displaying arrogance and a misplaced sense of superiority. Citing precedent (including Soriano v. Dizon), the IBP‑CBD recommended disbarment and striking respondent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

Court’s Review of the Criminal Facts

The Court examined the facts recited in the criminal decision: Amparado and Yapchangco were walking past respondent’s house without provocation when respondent emerged, aimed a rifle, and fired. Witnesses described rapid, indiscriminate firing that struck Amparado and damaged property. The Court found that the victims were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time and that respondent’s unprovoked, excessive conduct led to the death of Amparado, supporting a finding of moral turpitude in the particular homicide conviction.

Executive Clemency and Its Legal Effect

The Court rejected respondent’s contention that executive clemency restored his full civil and political rights. The clemency granted was a commutation of sentence, not an absolute and unconditional pardon; the commutation reduced the term of imprisonment but did not expressly remit acces

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 7973, 10457)

Case Caption and Docketing

En Banc decision reported at 752 Phil. 463; 111 OG No. 40, 5861 (October 5, 2015).
Two consolidated matters: A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457 (originating from CBC Case No. 08-2273).
Date of consolidation by the Supreme Court: Resolution dated 30 September 2014.
Decision format: Per Curiam.

Parties

Complainant: Dr. Melvyn G. Garcia (Garcia).
Respondent: Atty. Raul H. SesbreAo (SesbreAo).

Nature of the Proceedings

Two complaints for disbarment filed by Garcia against SesbreAo.
Proceedings involved referral to and investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), adoption of IBP-CBD recommendations by the IBP Board of Governors, and final review and disposition by the Supreme Court.

Procedural History — A.C. No. 7973 (Office of the Bar Confidant)

Filed: 30 July 2008 before the Office of the Bar Confidant; docketed as A.C. No. 7973.
Allegations by Garcia in A.C. No. 7973:
- Marriage history: Garcia married Virginia Alcantara in 1965 in Cebu; two children resulted: Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth.
- Separation occurred in 1971; Garcia became a dentist and practiced in Cabanatuan City.
- Virginia filed for annulment in 1992 which was eventually granted.
- In 2005, while Garcia was in Japan, SesbreAo, representing Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth, filed an action for support against Garcia and his sister Milagros Garcia Soliman; at the time of filing the support action, Maria Margarita was about 39 years old and Angie Ruth about 35 years old; that case was dismissed.
- In 2007, upon Garcia’s return from Japan, SesbreAo and Garcia’s children filed a Second Amended Complaint against Garcia.
- Garcia further alleged that SesbreAo had been convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 18, for homicide in Criminal Case No. CBU-31733, was only on parole, and that homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude such that SesbreAo should not be permitted to continue practicing law.
Respondent’s Answer (summary):
- SesbreAo asserted that Garcia filed a similar complaint a day earlier before the IBP-CBD (CBC Case No. 08-2273) and that Garcia’s complaints were motivated by resentment and revenge because SesbreAo had acted pro bono for Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth.
Referral:
- Supreme Court Resolution dated 18 January 2010 referred A.C. No. 7973 to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Procedural History — A.C. No. 10457 / CBC Case No. 08-2273 (IBP-CBD)

Filed: 29 July 2008 before the IBP-CBD; docketed as CBC Case No. 08-2273 and later redocketed as A.C. No. 10457 when transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Central allegation: SesbreAo was practicing law despite his conviction for homicide in Criminal Case No. CBU-31733, his release on parole, and that he had not fully served his sentence; alleged violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent’s Answer (summary):
- Claimed his sentence was commuted and that the phrase “with the inherent accessory penalties provided by law” was deleted from the commutation; argued disqualification applies only during the term of the sentence; contended homicide does not involve moral turpitude; maintained Garcia’s complaint was motivated by malice and retaliation for SesbreAo’s representation of Garcia’s daughters.
Consolidation by IBP-CBD:
- A.C. No. 7973 and CBC Case No. 08-2273 were consolidated by the IBP-CBD.
- Parties agreed the sole issue: whether conviction for homicide involves moral turpitude.
IBP-CBD findings on conviction and parole:
- RTC Cebu Branch 18 originally found SesbreAo guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court downgraded the conviction to homicide and imposed a penalty of imprisonment from 9 years and 1 day (prision mayor, minimum) to 16 years and 4 months (reclusion temporal, maximum).
- SesbreAo was released from confinement on 27 July 2001 after accepting parole conditions on 10 July 2001.

IBP-CBD Findings and Rationale

Legal premise: Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Precedent applied: International Rice Research Institute v. NLRC — homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on degree and surrounding circumstances; moral turpitude is a question of fact in many cases.
Factual analysis regarding the incident:
- Victim: Luciano Amparado; companion: Christopher Yapchangco.
- Circumstances summarized by IBP-CBD:
  - Neither Amparado nor Yapchangco were shown to be foes of respondent; neither had wronged respondent.
  - They were at the wrong place at the wrong time early morning of June 3, 1993.
  - Respondent went out of his house, aimed his rifle, and fired without provocation; shots hit the victim and other property; the conduct was described as vindictive, cruel, and displaying extreme arrogance and a misplaced sense of superiority.
- The IBP-CBD compared and paraphrased this conduct with the Supreme Court’s observations in Soriano v. Dizon to support a finding of moral turpitude.
IBP-CBD recommendation:
- In view of the circumstances and precedent (including Soriano v. Atty. Dizon), the IBP-CBD recommended disbarment and that respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

IBP Board of Governors Action and Subsequent Steps

Adoption: IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD Report and