Garcia v.

Sesbreño
A.C. No. 7973 & A.C. No. 10457; Feb. 3, 2015

Facts:

Garcia filed two disbarment complaint against Atty. Sesbreño, which was consolidated
by the Court, on the grounds of moral turpitude.
In the first complaint (A.C. 7973), it involved the daughters of Garcia, represented by
Atty. Sesbreño, where they filed a petition for support against Garcia and her sister while he was
in Japan. The case was eventually dismissed. When Garcia returned from Japan, Atty. Sesbreño
filed another Amended Complaint against him. At this time, Garcia has known that Atty.
Sesbreño was convicted by RTC of Cebu, Branch 18, for Homicide and that Atty. Sesbreño is
only on parole. Garcia insisted that Atty. Sesbreño should not continue practice law because he
committed a crime involving moral turpitude.
In the second complaint (A.C. 10457) before the IBP-CBD, Garcia stressed out that
Sesbreño is still practicing law despite his previous conviction for homicide. He alleged that
Sesbreño violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by continuing to engage in the
practice of law despite his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. On the other hand,
Sesbreño argued that homicide does not involve moral turpitude and that, Garcia’s complaint is
just motivated by malice and the desire to retaliate.

Issue:

Whether or not conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude and atty
Sesbreño should be disbarred.

Ruling:

Yes.

The IBP-CBD ruled in International Rice Research Institute v. National Labor Relations
Commission that homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of
the crime. The IBP-CBD reviewed the court decision for the crime of Sesbreño and found out
that the circumstances leading to the death of the victim involved moral turpitude. Sesbreño
violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and hence, be disbarred.