Case Digest (A.C. No. 5333)
Facts:
Rosa Yap Paras v. Atty. Justo de Jesus Paras, A.C. No. 5333, October 18, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Rosa Yap Paras filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Justo de Jesus Paras, alleging (1) dishonesty, falsification and fraud for obtaining bank loans by counterfeiting complainant’s signature and misappropriating loan proceeds and mortgaging conjugal properties without complainant’s consent; (2) grossly immoral conduct and concubinage for maintaining an illicit relationship with Ms. Jocelyn A. Ching and siring an illegitimate child; and (3) obstruction of justice and misuse of legal processes to harass and intimidate opponents. The parties had been married since May 21, 1964, separated about 1988, and a pending petition for dissolution of marriage remained in court.
In his Answer respondent denied the major allegations but admitted that Ms. Ching and her child had been allowed to stay with his mother and sister and that he gave them some financial assistance. He offered as defenses a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) allegedly executed by complainant authorizing him to negotiate agricultural loans, and a claim that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) report was doctored; he pointed to dismissals in prior criminal proceedings (forgery/falsification and concubinage) as evidence of lack of guilt.
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated the complaint on the parties’ written submissions (no formal hearing) and summarized the causes as (1) falsification of complainant’s signature and misuse of conjugal assets, and (2) immorality/concubinage and abandonment. The CBD credited the NBI handwriting examination and multiple sworn affidavits and depositions (including those of the couple’s children, a former secretary and household employees) and found respondent guilty, recommending suspension from the practice of law for three months on the first charge and an indefinite suspension on the second charge.
On judicial review, the Supreme Court (Third Division) resolved the disciplinary case by examining the NBI findings, the effect of the SPA, and the numerous affidavits and depositions alleging respondent’s illicit relationship and acts demonstrating abandonment; ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does dismissal of the criminal complaints against respondent bar administrative disciplinary proceedings for falsification and concubinage?
- Did respondent commit falsification of complainant’s signature in the bank loan and mortgage documents?
- Did respondent engage in immorality/concubinage and abandon his family so as to warrant disciplinary sanction?
- What penalty is appr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)