3.

Rosa Yap Paras vs Justo Paras

AC # 5333, March 13, 2017

FACTS: The case at bar is an administrative complaint filed by Rosa Yap Paras (complainant) against her
husband Justo de Jesus Paras (respondent) for which he was suspended from practicing law for 1 year, in
which her husband allegedly violated said order by the SC.

In a Decision 2 dated October 18, 2000, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for
six (6) months for falsifying his wife's signature in bank documents and other related loan instruments, and for
one (1) year for immorality and abandonment of his family, with the penalties to be served simultaneously.
Respondent moved for reconsideration but the Court denied it with finality in a Resolution dated January 22,
2001.

Complainant now filed a Motion to declare in contempt and disbar respondent and his associate, ATty.
Richard Enojo, alleging that respondent continued to practice law by making pleadings and even appearing in
court for various cases. Respondent and Atty. Enojo filed their comments, eventually filing a Motion to Lift
Suspension since he has completed the suspension period as set by the Court. The SC referred the matter to
the IBP for report and recommendation.

Complainant filed a Motion for Clarificatory Order on the status of respondent’s suspension, asking
whether respondent can resume his practice prior to the Court’s order to lift his suspension. The SC referred
the matter to the OBC for report and recommendation.

The OBC recommended that the SC issue an order declaring that respondent cannot practice law until
his suspension order is duly lifted by the SC. The OBC used case law and opined that the lifting of a
suspension order is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the SC decision, which follows that a
court order for respondent to resume his practice is essential to enable him to practice law again.

Unfortunately, the IBP ruled on the 1995 case and left the SC to decide on the case lacking any
material facts from the IBP as a matter of procedure.

ISSUE: Whether or not Justo Paras should be suspended for practicing law during his suspension.

HELD: YES. However, the point is moot and academic since respondent has already been disbarred in a
previous case (Paras vs. Paras, AC # 7348, September 27, 2016).

According to jurisprudence, the "practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, as well as legal principles, practice or procedure, and calls for legal knowledge,
training, and experience." During the suspension period and before the suspension is lifted, a lawyer must
desist from practicing law. It must be stressed, however, that a lawyer's suspension is not automatically lifted
upon the lapse of the suspension period. The lawyer must submit the required documents and wait for an
order from the Court lifting the suspension before he or she resumes the practice of law.

Even if Paras has already been disbarred, the SC still ruled that he should be suspended for purposes
of recording in his personal file in the OBC.

Atty. Enojo was found by the court to be innocent from complainant’s contentions, since the claim is
unsubstantiated and the pleading that was everted to by complainant was made on a date wherein the
suspension of respondent was not yet effective. Hence, the contempt charge against Atty. Enojo cannot
prosper for lack of patent merit.