Title
Paras vs. Paras
Case
A.C. No. 5333
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2000
A lawyer forged his wife's signature to secure loans, misused conjugal assets, and fathered a child with another woman while married, leading to suspension for falsification and immorality.
disbarment case
lawyer suspension
forging signature

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5333)

Charges and the Parties’ Basic Positions

In the disbarment complaint, complainant alleged that respondent committed dishonesty, falsification of public documents, harassment and intimidation, and immorality, including siring a child with another woman. She specifically charged that respondent obtained loans from certain banks in her name by counterfeiting her signature, falsely making it appear that complainant was the applicant, and then misappropriated the proceeds of the loans. Complainant further alleged that respondent mortgaged personal properties belonging to the conjugal partnership without her consent. For the immorality aspect, complainant alleged grossly immoral conduct and concubinage, asserting that respondent maintained an illicit relationship with Ms. Jocelyn A. Ching while married to complainant and sired an illegitimate child. She also accused respondent of unethical and unprofessional conduct, obstruction of justice, and the misuse of legal skills to intimidate adverse parties by filing complaints and pleadings designed to obstruct justice.

Respondent denied the allegations. He contended that complainant, allegedly in cahoots with her family, intended to destroy him and strip him of his share in the parties’ multi-million conjugal assets. With respect to the falsification charge, respondent claimed that during the sugar boom in the 1970s, complainant executed in his favor a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to negotiate and obtain an agricultural or crop loan for sugar cane from the Bais Rural Bank, Bais City. As to forgery, he asserted that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) report finding that the questioned and standard sample signatures were written by the same person was doctored, and he suggested that complainant filed multiple cases against him out of intent to disinherit their children and bequeath his inchoate share to his mother. For the immorality and concubinage charge, respondent maintained that the allegation was malicious and fabricated by his brother-in-law, Atty. Francisco D. Yap, to disqualify him from receiving a share in conjugal assets. He invoked the dismissal of a concubinage complaint filed against him by complainant before the City Prosecutor of Negros Oriental as proof of innocence, yet he admitted that he, his mother, and sister were hospitable to Jocelyn Ching and her daughter, providing them space in their house and some financial assistance, out of pity for Jocelyn, who allegedly had been deserted by her boyfriend after becoming pregnant. On obstruction of justice, respondent argued that his legal actions in defense and offense were legitimate for an embattled lawyer.

Commission on Bar Discipline Proceedings and Evidentiary Posture

The complaint was investigated by the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. No actual hearing was conducted because the parties agreed to submit memoranda, depositions, and other documentary pieces attached to their pleadings. The CBD found respondent guilty on the charges, summarized as follows: (one) Falsification of complainant’s signature and misuse of conjugal assets; and (two) immorality and criminal acts of concubinage involving Ms. Ma. Jocelyn Ching while siring an illegitimate child, coupled with abandonment of his family.

The CBD recommended (one) respondent’s suspension for three months on the falsification charge and (two) respondent’s indefinite suspension on the second charge involving immorality and concubinage. The CBD reasoned that the dismissal of criminal cases for falsification and use of falsified documents and for concubinage would not bar the administrative disbarment proceeding. It emphasized the differing evidentiary thresholds: proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal conviction, versus preponderance of evidence in administrative cases. It further accorded credence to the NBI report that the questioned signatures (on loan agreements, contracts of mortgage, and similar instruments) and the standard sample signatures of respondent were written by one and the same person, treating that finding as corroborative of complainant’s allegation that respondent forged her signatures. As to immorality, the CBD relied heavily on sworn statements of respondent’s children and additional eyewitnesses detailing respondent’s illicit relationship with Jocelyn Ching.

Falsification of Signature: NBI Handwriting Findings and Respondent’s Explanation

On the falsification charge, handwriting examination by the NBI on the signatures of complainant Rosa Yap Paras and respondent Justo de Jesus Paras, compared with the questioned signature “Rosa Y. Paras” appearing in questioned bank loan documents, contracts of mortgage, and related instruments, produced these conclusions: the questioned and standard sample signatures of Justo J. Paras were written by one and the same person, and the questioned and standard sample signatures of Rosa Yap Paras were not written by one and the same person. The NBI did not issue a categorical statement that respondent forged complainant’s signatures. However, the evidentiary analysis in the decision treated the forensic results as leaving “no other conclusion” than that the questioned or falsified signatures attributed to complainant were authored by respondent, given that the falsified signatures matched respondent’s standard samples.

Respondent sought to explain the signatures through a Special Power of Attorney executed by complainant to authorize him to negotiate for and obtain an agricultural or crop loan. The Court treated that explanation as failing to exculpate him. It reasoned that if respondent were authorized to obtain loans from banks, he would not have needed to falsify complainant’s signature in the bank loan documents. The Court described the legal function of an SPA as an authorization for the attorney-in-fact to sign for and on behalf of the principal using the attorney-in-fact’s own name, not to substitute for the principal’s signature in a manner that would require forgery.

Immorality and Concubinage: Sworn Statements, Corroborative Documents, and Circumstantial Evidence

The Court likewise treated the evidence of immorality and concubinage as substantial. It considered the sworn affidavit-statements of respondent’s children and other persons who had witnessed circumstances indicative of infidelity. Those statements described respondent’s relationship with Ms. Jocelyn Ching and the birth and presence of their child, Cyndee Rose.

One affidavit came from Dahlia Y. Paras, a nurse, who stated that her father had left the family home and later lived at his mother’s house in Dumaguete City; that he had a “kabit” by the name of Ma. Jocelyn Ching; that he and Jocelyn had a child named Cyndee Rose delivered on July 19, 1990 at Silliman University Hospital Medical Center; and that Jocelyn was respondent’s secretary during legal practice in 1988 to 1989. Dahlia recounted that after delivery her father rented an apartment for Jocelyn, that respondent built a house for Jocelyn, that Dahlia observed Jocelyn in respondent’s law office and saw indications of daily cohabitation, and that Dahlia became convinced, after seeing the child, that Cyndee Rose was respondent’s daughter with Jocelyn. She also described seeing toys and child’s clothes in respondent’s room and alleged that Jocelyn deliberately avoided her, consistent with concealment.

A supplemental affidavit reinforced the same theme through repeated visits where Dahlia met Jocelyn at respondent’s place while Jocelyn dressed in house clothes and conducted herself as one living there. It also introduced mention of a working student, Josie Vailoces, who allegedly confirmed under oath in a deposition in Civil Case No. 10613, RTC-Dumaguete City, Branch 30, presided by Enrique C. Garovillo, that respondent and Jocelyn were living together as husband and wife at respondent’s place.

Respondent’s son, Rhouel Y. Paras, also submitted an affidavit stating that he was a high school student; that his father left the family home; that respondent ceased giving support after a time, though he received allowances at first; and that in October 1992 he saw his father lying in bed with a woman in respondent’s room when the door was unlocked. Rhouel described the woman as wearing shorts and T-shirt, stated that both seemed scared, and recounted that respondent gave him money and he left. Rhouel claimed he later learned the woman was Jocelyn Ching. He further stated that he had previously seen the woman at his father’s house on earlier visits.

A sworn statement from Virgilio V. Kabrisante, respondent’s secretary during his mayoral incumbency, narrated activities that indicated an ongoing relationship. Kabrisante described that respondent confided his attraction to Jocelyn Ching and requested that Kabrisante invite her to dinner; that the two and respondent had dinners and picnics; that Kabrisante observed increasing intimacy; that on multiple occasions respondent met Jocelyn near Silliman University Medical Center and that Kabrisante drove both to a motel, waited outside, and later accompanied them to supper and subsequent drop-offs; and that these meetings were repeated on Fridays. Kabrisante also described later renting and room arrangements conne

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms