Yap-Paras vs.

Justo Paras
A.C. # 4947, February 14, 2005

FACTS: Rosa Yap-Paras (Petitioner) filed a case against Atty. Justo Paras (respondent) praying for the
disbarment of the latter, accusing that he committed acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct,
grossly immoral conduct, and violation of oath as a lawyer committed by the latter. The respondent
was found guilty by the SC of falsehood and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, with a warning that a similar offense committed in the future will yield a harsher penalty.
The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the court as per his suspension. During its
pendency, petitioner filed a Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment under the ground that Atty. Paras
did not heed the SC’s suspension order and was still practicing his legal profession. Eventually, the MR
was denied by the SC and asked respondent to comment on the current motion filed against him by
the petitioner within 10 days. The respondent filed a Manifestation with the court after more than a
year, stating that he has already complied with the 1-year suspension. In response, the SC issued
another resolution that compels respondent to explain why he should not be held in contempt for failing
to comply with the previous resolution. Respondent replied by denying the previous allegations made
by petitioner that he was engaged in the practice of law during his suspension.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Atty. Justo Paras should be disbarred for violating the SC’s suspension order by
practicing his legal profession during his suspension period.
(2) Whether or not Atty. Justo Paras should be disbarred by failing to file a comment on time as
demanded by the SC.

HELD:
(1) NO. The SC found no factual basis on the petitioner’s allegations that the respondent
practiced law during his suspension. Respondent even took the initiative to inform the lower
courts of his one-year suspension from the practice of law, as the SC noted.
(2) NO. While it is clear that resolutions of the SC are not mere requests that can be brushed
aside or partially complied with and that the SC’s authority should always be respected and
observed, the SC held that the respondent’s failing health and surgical operations that he
underwent are reasonable excuses for him to not be able to file his comment on time.
Moreover, the SC took note that respondent expressed his profound regret and
immeasurable sorrow for not being able to comply with the court’s order.
Hence, a REPRIMAND with WARNING was deemed sufficient punishment by the SC for
respondent’s failures, coupled with a reminder that a more drastic punishment shall be meted
out accordingly if such offense shall be repeated by the respondent.