Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 4947 February 14, 2005
ROSA YAP-PARAS, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. USTO PARAS, respondent.
R S O ! " T I O N
!ARC"A, J.:
#efore us is this verified Petition
$
filed b% Rosa &ap'Paras pra%in( for the disbar)ent of her estran(ed husband *tt%. +usto Paras on
alle(ed acts of deceit, )alpractice, (rave )isconduct, (rossl% i))oral conduct and violation of his oath as a la,%er.
On $- +anuar% $.-., respondent filed his co))ent
/
to the Petition.
In a Resolution dated $0 1ebruar% $...,
2
the 3ourt referred the case to the Inte(rated #ar of the Philippines 4I#P5 for investi(ation,
report and reco))endation.
The bac6(round facts are su))ari7ed in a Report and Reco))endation dated $2 +anuar% /008
8
of 3o))issioner !%dia *. Navarro
of the I#P 3o))ission on #ar Discipline, ,hich Report reads in part, as follo,s9
:3o)plainant alle(ed that on 1ebruar% ., $.;< the children of !edes)a de +esus Paras'Su)abon( na)el% 3one(unda, +usto,
3ora7on, 3ar)en and 3ataluna all surna)ed Paras e=ecuted a Special Po,er of *ttorne% prepared b% the respondent to sell parcels of
land located in Matobato, #indo%, Ne(ros Oriental (ivin( authorit% to their )other to sell the sub>ect real properties previousl%
re(istered in the na)e of the heirs of Vicente Paras ,herein respondent ,as one of the si(natories therein.
3o)plainant alle(ed that on Ma% 8, $.;; on the basis of said Special Po,er of *ttorne%, !edes)a +. Paras'Su)aban( e=ecuted a
Deed of *bsolute Sale in favor of *urora D%'&ap over the sub>ect real propert% located in Matobato, #indo%, Ne(ros Oriental ,hich
,as ,ith the respondent?s full 6no,led(e since he ,as residin( at the house of Soledad D%'&ap at that ti)e and fro) that ti)e, the
&ap fa)il% had been in possession of the sub>ect real propert% up to the present.
3o)plainant alle(ed that so)eti)e in +une $..- her attention ,as called to the fact that a free patent title to the aforesaid propert%
,as issued in respondent?s na)e and upon verification ,ith the DNR, #ureau of !ands, Du)a(uete 3it%, co)plainant ,as able to
(et copies of the docu)ents for lot Nos. ;;0, 8.0 and <-< pertainin( to the Notice of *pplication for 1ree Patent dated *pril /, $.-<
si(ned b% the respondent@ over the aforesaid lots previousl% sold b% !edes)a de +esus to *urora D. &ap@ Auitclai)BRenunciation of
Propert% Ri(hts and Interest Over Real Propert% e=ecuted b% !edes)a de +esus dated Ma% /-, $.-<@ !etter of *pplication dated *pril
/, $.-< si(ned b% respondent under oath before *polonio Tan authori7ed officer to ad)inister oath@ !etter of 3ertification si(ned b%
*polonio Tan dated +une 8, $.-< and Order of *pproval dated *u(ust $., $.-< si(ned b% District !and Officer Teopisto !. Callo7o
,ith a 1ree Patent No. 2/- in the na)e of respondent +usto +. Paras.
3o)plainant alle(ed that the afore)entioned application ,as )ade b% the respondent ,ithout her 6no,led(e and consent and those
acts of deceit, )achinations and falsification of docu)ents ,ere deliberatel% ,illfull%, and )aliciousl% co))itted b% the respondent
in violation of *rt. $D/ in relation to *rt. $D$ of the RP3@ in betra%al of his oath as a la,%er and a trans(ression of the 3anons of
Professional Responsibilit%.1vvphi1.nt
3o)plainant alle(ed that respondent surreptitiousl% obtained a free patent title over real properties ,hich had been previousl% sold b%
his o,n )other to *urora D. &ap and no, still under the control and possession of co)plainant?s natural fa)il%, a fact respondent
alle(edl% ,ithheld fro) the #ureau of !ands ,hich he had full 6no,led(e in successfull% causin( the release of a free patent in his
na)e and un>ustl% and unla,full% deprived the ri(htful o,ners of their le(iti)ate title to the said propert% in betra%al of the court to
pervert the ad)inistration of >ustice in (ross violation of his oath of office.
=== === ===
In his 3o))ent, respondent alle(ed that co)plainant ,as obviousl% not the o,ner of the properties and considerin( that the
properties ,ere applied for free patent titlin( durin( their )arital union prior to its brea6a(e, co)plainant ,as li6e,ise a co))unal
o,ner thereof and as such ,as also co)plainin( a(ainst herself.
Respondent alle(ed that later on, a (reat portion of the public lands classified as forested 7one in Matobato ,ere declared and
reclassified into public a(ricultural lands, then publicl% surve%ed and parceli7ed b% lots identified in the surve% )ap based on actual or
6no,n occupants@ then the #ureau of !ands alle(edl% )ade a public announce)ent that the lands ,ere available for private o,nership
thru 1ree Patent *pplication available onl% to native settlers or natural born 1ilipinos.
Respondent alle(ed that none of the &aps includin( co)plainant bein( native or natural born 1ilipinos )uchless *urora D. &ap ,ho in
$.-< ,as said to be alread% an *)erican citi7en@ co)plainant and her fa)il%@ the &aps prevailed upon hi) to appl% for free patent
over said Euestioned properties for the reason that respondent had alread% occupied the properties@ introduced i)prove)ents thereon@
acted as o,ner thereof@ and could easil% ali(n his ri(ht to the propert% ,hich had been identified in the public surve% as :Heirs of
Vicente Paras:, other,ise the Euestioned properties alle(edl% accordin( to the &aps ,ill be applied for and a,arded to other Eualified
natural born 1ilipinos.
Respondent alle(ed that 1ree Patent *pplication ,as filed b% hi) over the co))unal propert% of hi) and the co)plainant as ,ell as
those purchased b% hi) includin( the portion ,hose occupanc% of a public land ,as purchased b% *urora D. &ap fro) !edes)a Vda
de Paras upon the proddin( of the &aps for all of the) ,ere not Eualified to appl% for o,nership of an a(ricultural public land via free
patent@ none of the) bein( a natural born 1ilipino or native settler and ,ere disEualified fro) a (ratuitous (rant of public land fro)
the (overn)ent.
Respondent alle(ed that the ,hole idea of (ivin( to hi) and the co)plainant the properties ,as hatched and e=ecuted b% the &aps,
)ost particularl% *tt%. 1rancisco D. &ap to circu)vent the la, and prevent the properties fro) bein( (iven b% the (overn)ent to so)e
other Eualified persons. He alle(edl% applied for issuance of free patent in (ood faith and thereafter too6 do)inion and control of the
properties in the concept of a le(iti)ate o,ner under authorit% of a (ratuitous (rant of the (overn)ent.
Respondent alle(ed that co)plainant or an% )e)ber of her fa)il% )uch less *)erican citi7en *urora D% &ap had not )ade an% prior
de)and for the return of the Euestioned properties@ nor filed a co)plaint under the Fatarun(an( Pa)baran(a% !a,@ nor filed an
ad)inistrative re)ed% before the DNR for the cancellation and reversionBtransfer of the 1ree Patent and Title to the)@ nor brou(ht
an% action in an% civil court for either Euietin( of title, or cancellation of free patent title or recover% of o,nership or ,hatever.
Respondent alle(ed that even ,ithout such civil court deter)ination on ,hether or not co)plainant or her fa)il% ,ere Eualified to
beco)e (rantee of a (overn)ent (ratuitous (rant of public a(ricultural land, if the Honorable Supre)e 3ourt ,ill decide that
co)plainant, her )other, brothers and sisters ,ere ,ithin the a)bit of the ter) natural born citi7en or native citi7ens under the $.8;
3onstitution and to the) ri(htfull% belon( the o,nership of the Euestioned titled public a(ricultural lands@ and that he can never be
(uilt% of the *nti'Du))% !a, conseEuent to such cession, respondent alle(ed that he ,ill (ladl% deliver and transfer title to the).
Respondent alle(ed that he sou(ht and pra%ed for recover% of possession of all con>u(alBco))unal properties includin( the herein
Euestioned properties for after he left the con>u(al ho)e in $.-- possession of all these properties, real and personal ,ere until no,
,ith the co)plainant and her biolo(ical fa)il%.1vvphi1.nt
Respondent pra%ed for the outri(ht dis)issal of the petition for lac6 of )erit.:
3o)plainant subseEuentl% filed a Repl%
<
to respondent?s 3o))ent, therein refutin( respondent?s clai)s that he ,as used as a
:du))%: since co)plainant and her siblin(s had previousl% acEuired 1ree Patents in their na)es. 3o)plainant further alle(ed that
respondent is )orall% unfit to continue to be an officer of the court because of his falsel% declarin( under oath that he had been
occup%in( the sub>ect real propert% since $.-< ,hen in fact he did not and ,as never in occupationBpossession thereof.
On /D *u(ust $..., the I#P 3o))ission on #ar Discipline issued an Order
;
notin( the filin( of the last pleadin( and settin( the
instant case for hearin(. Several hearin(s
D
,ere conducted ,herein co)plainant presented all her ,itnesses to(ether ,ith their
respective affidavits and supportin( docu)ents
-
, ,hich ,ere all sub>ected to cross'e=a)ination b% the respondent. !i6e,ise,
respondent presented his 3ounter'*ffidavit
.
and supportin( docu)ents.
#ased on the fore(oin(, the Investi(atin( 3o))issioner concluded her Report and )ade a reco))endation, as follo,s9
:1ro) the facts obtainin( respondent co))itted deceit and falsehood in havin( applied for free patent over lands o,ned b% another
over ,hich he had no actual ph%sical possession bein( a,are of the fact that the sa)e ,as previousl% transferred in the na)e of
*urora &ap@ an act ,hich adversel% reflected on his fitness to practice la, in violation of Rule D.02, 3anon D of the 3ode of
Professional Responsibilit%.
:It is i))aterial as to ,ho instituted the co)plaint for as lon( as there ,as a violation of the 3ode of Professional Responsibilit%
,hich parta6es the nature of proper disciplinar% action pursuant to Section $, Rule $2.'# of the Disbar)ent and Discipline of
*ttorne%s.
:Gherefore in vie, of the fore(oin(, the "ndersi(ned respectfull% reco))ends for the suspension of *tt%. +usto Paras fro) the
practice of his la, profession for a period of three 425 )onths fro) receipt hereof.
:It is also hereb% reco))ended that the I#P 3hapter ,herein respondent Paras is a re(istered )e)ber be furnished a cop% of the
Order and notified of the said suspension for proper enforce)ent.:
Via Resolution No. HVI'/008'$/0 dated /D 1ebruar% /008,
$0
the I#P #oard of Covernors adopted the Report of the Investi(atin(
3o))issioner but )odified the latter?s reco))ended penalt% b% reco))endin( that respondent be suspended fro) the practice of
la, for si= 4;5 )onths for violation of Rule D.02, 3anon D of the 3ode of Professional Responsibilit%.
The case is no, before us for confir)ation.
Ge a(ree ,ith the I#P #oard of Covernors that respondent should be sanctioned. Ge find, ho,ever, that the reco))ended penalt% is
not co))ensurate to the (ravit% of the ,ron( perpetrated.
The 3ourt has al,a%s re)inded that a la,%er shall at all ti)es uphold the inte(rit% and di(nit% of the le(al profession
$$
as the bar
should al,a%s )aintain a hi(h standard of le(al proficienc% as ,ell as of honest% and fair dealin( a)on( its )e)bers. #% and lar(e, a
la,%er can do honor to the le(al profession b% faithfull% perfor)in( his duties to societ%, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.
$/

To this end, nothin( should be done b% an% )e)ber of the le(al fraternit% ,hich )i(ht tend to lessen in an% de(ree the confidence and
trust reposed b% the public in the fidelit%, honest% and inte(rit% of the le(al profession.
$2
In Marcelo v. Javier
$8
, ,e held9
:It bears stressin( that )e)bership in the bar is a privile(e burdened ,ith conditions. * la,%er has the privile(e and ri(ht to practice
la, durin( (ood behavior and can onl% be deprived of it for )isconduct ascertained and declared b% >ud()ent of the court after
opportunit% to be heard has been afforded hi). Githout invadin( an% constitutional privile(e or ri(ht, an attorne%?s ri(ht to practice
la, )a% be resolved b% a proceedin( to suspend or disbar hi), based on conduct renderin( hi) unfit to hold a license or to e=ercise
the duties and responsibilities of an attorne%. It )ust be understood that the purpose of suspendin( or disbarrin( an attorne% is to
re)ove fro) the profession a person ,hose )isconduct has proved hi) unfit to be entrusted ,ith the duties and responsibilities
belon(in( to the office of an attorne%, and thus to protect the public and those char(ed ,ith the ad)inistration of >ustice, rather than to
punish the attorne%.
:*n attorne% )a% be disbarred or suspended for an% violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorne% and counsellor ,hich include
the statutor% (rounds enu)erated in Section /D, Rule $2- of the Rules of 3ourt. These statutor% (rounds are so broad as to cover
practicall% an% )isconduct of a la,%er in his professional or private capacit%. It is a settled rule that the enu)eration of the statutor%
(rounds for disciplinar% action is not e=clusive and a la,%er )a% be disciplined on (rounds other than those specificall% provided in
the la,. Cenerall% a la,%er )a% be disbarred or suspended for an% )isconduct, ,hether in his professional or private capacit%, ,hich
sho,s hi) to be ,antin( in )oral character, in honest%, probit% and (ood de)eanor or un,orth% to continue as an officer of the court,
or an unfit or unsafe person to en>o% the privile(es and to )ana(e the business of others in the capacit% of an attorne%, or for conduct
,hich tends to brin( reproach on the le(al profession or to in>ure it in the favorable opinion of the public.:
Indeed, the practice of la, is not a ri(ht but )erel% a privile(e besto,ed b% the State upon those ,ho sho, that the% possess, and
continue to possess, the Eualifications reEuired b% la, for the confer)ent of such privile(e.
$<
One of those reEuire)ents is the
observance of honest% and candor.
*nd in the recent case of #er(onia v. Merrera
$;
, ,e ruled9
:3andor in all their dealin(s is the ver% essence of a practitioner?s honorable )e)bership in the le(al profession. !a,%ers are reEuired
to act ,ith the hi(hest standard of truthfulness, fair pla% and nobilit% in the conduct of liti(ation and in their relations ,ith their
clients, the opposin( parties, the other counsels and the courts. The% are bound b% their oath to spea6 the truth and to conduct
the)selves accordin( to the best of their 6no,led(e and discretion, and ,ith fidelit% to the courts and their clients. = = =:
In the instant case, it is clear to the 3ourt that respondent violated his la,%er?s oath as ,ell as the 3ode of Professional Responsibilit%
,hich )andates upon each la,%er, as his dut% to societ% and to the courts, the obli(ation to obe% the la,s of the land and to do no
falsehood nor consent to the doin( of an% in court. Respondent has been deplorabl% lac6in( in the candor reEuired of hi) as a )e)ber
of the #ar and an officer of the court in his acts of appl%in( for the issuance of a free patent over the properties in issue despite his
6no,led(e that the sa)e had alread% been sold b% his )other to co)plainant?s sister. This fact, respondent even ad)itted in the
co))ent that he filed before this 3ourt ,hen he alle(ed that the said properties ,ere public land under the 1orestal Ione :,hen the
)other of the respondent ceded to *urora &ap so)e portions of entire occupanc% of the Parases:
$D
. Moreover, respondent co))itted
deceit and falsehood in his application for free patent over the said properties ,hen he )anifested under oath that he had been in the
actual possession and occupation of the said lands despite the fact that these ,ere continuousl% in the possession and occupation of
co)plainant?s fa)il%, as evidenced no less b% respondent?s o,n state)ents in the pleadin(s filed before the I#P.
*nent his ar(u)ent Euestionin( the status of co)plainant and her fa)il% as :natural born citi7ens:, this 3ourt holds that the instant
case is not the proper foru) to address such issue. 1urther)ore, as correctl% held b% the Investi(atin( 3o))issioner, :JiKt is
i))aterial as to ,ho instituted the co)plaint for as lon( as there ,as a violation of the 3ode of Professional Responsibilit%:.
!i6e,ise, an% other action ,hich the parties )a% )a6e a(ainst each other has no )aterial bearin( in this case. 1or, it )ust be
re)e)bered that ad)inistrative cases a(ainst la,%ers belon( to a class of their o,n. The% are distinct fro) and )a% proceed
independentl% of civil and cri)inal cases.
In line here,ith, this 3ourt in In re *l)acen,
$-
held9
:*ccent should be laid on the fact that disciplinar% proceedin(s li6e the present are sui (eneris. Neither purel% civil nor purel%
cri)inal, this proceedin( is not L and does not involve L a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investi(ation b% the 3ourt into the
conduct of its officers. Not bein( intended to inflict punish)ent, it is in no sense a cri)inal prosecution. *ccordin(l%, there is neither a
plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It )a% be initiated b% the 3ourt motu proprio. Public interest is its pri)ar% ob>ective, and the real
Euestion for deter)ination is ,hether or not the attorne% is still a fit person to be allo,ed the privile(es as such. Hence, in the e=ercise
of its disciplinar% po,ers, the 3ourt )erel% calls upon a )e)ber of the #ar to account for his actuations as an officer of the 3ourt
,ith the end in vie, of preservin( the purit% of the le(al profession and the proper and honest ad)inistration of >ustice b% pur(in( the
profession of )e)bers ,ho b% their )isconduct have proved the)selves no lon(er ,orth% to be entrusted ,ith the duties and
responsibilities pertainin( to the office of an attorne%. ===:
The facts and evidence obtainin( in the instant case indubitabl% reveal respondent?s failure to live up to his duties as a la,%er in
consonance ,ith the strictures of the la,%er?s oath and the 3ode of Professional Responsibilit%, thereb% occasionin( sanction fro)
this 3ourt.
*t this >uncture, ,e ta6e note that on $- October /000, in our Decision in *.3. No. <222 for)erl% *.3. No. 3#D'2D$, entitled Rosa
Yap Paras v. Atty. Justo de Jesus Paras, respondent ,as previousl% )eted ,ith suspension fro) the practice of la, for si= 4;5 )onths
on the char(e of falsif%in( his ,ife?s si(nature in ban6 docu)ents and other related loan instru)ents, and for one 4$5 %ear fro) the
practice of la, on the char(es of i))oralit% and abandon)ent of his o,n fa)il%.
3onsiderin( the serious nature of the instant offense and in li(ht of respondent?s prior )isde)eanors for ,hich he ,as penali7ed ,ith
a si= 4;5 )onth and one 4$5 %ear suspension fro) the practice of la,, his deplorable behavior in the present case ,hich (rossl%
de(rades the le(al profession ,arrants the i)position of a )uch (raver penalt%.1vvphi1.nt
#$EREFORE, findin( respondent *tt%. +usto +. Paras (uilt% of co))ittin( a falsehood in violation of his la,%er?s oath and of the
3ode of Professional Responsibilit%, the 3ourt Resolved to S"SPND respondent fro) the practice of la, for a period of one 4$5
%ear, ,ith a G*RNINC that co))ission of the sa)e or si)ilar offense in the future ,ill result in the i)position of a )ore severe
penalt%.
!et copies of this Resolution be furnished the I#P, as ,ell as the Office of the #ar 3onfidant and the 3ourt *d)inistrator ,ho shall
circulate it to all courts for their infor)ation and (uidance and li6e,ise be entered in the record of respondent as attorne%.
SO ORDRD.
Pan(aniban, 43hair)an5, Sandoval'Cutierre7, 3orona, and 3arpio'Morales, ++., concur.
Foo%&o%e'
$
Rollo, Vol. I at pp. 2'..
/
Rollo, Vol. $ at pp. /;;'/D2.
2
Rollo, Vol. I at p. 28;.
8
Rollo, Vol. II at pp. ;$-';/;.
<
Rollo, Vol. II at pp. $'<.
;
Rollo, Vol. II at p. $$.
D
Hearin(s ,ere conducted on $< October $..., $/ Nove)ber $..., $; Dece)ber $... and /D +anuar% /000.
-
Rollo, Vol. II at pp. 2/'//2.
.
Rollo, Vol. II at pp. /<.'/.;.
$0
Rollo, Vol. II at p. ;$D.
$$
3anon D, 3ode of Professional Responsibilit%
$/
*(palo, R.., !e(al thics, J$.-. ed.K, -D.
$2
Abragan v. Rodrigue, 8/. Phil ;0D J/00/K@ Maligsa v. !abanting, 22- S3R* .$/ J$..DK@ and "ernande v. #recia, //2
S3R* 8/< J$..2K.
$8
/$8 S3R* $ J$../K, citin( People e$ rel. %arlin v. !ul&in, /8- N& 8;<, ;0 *!R -<$ J$./-K@ 'edesma v. !limaco, <D
S3R* 8D2 J$.D8K@ (a)an v. !usi, <D S3R* $<8 J$.D8K@ *$ parte +all, $0D "S /;<, /D ! ed <//, / S 3t <;.@ -uing.a v.
Puno, $. S3R* 82. J$.;DK@ /aroy v. 'egaspi, ;< S3R* 208 J$.D<K@ /ia v. #erong, $8$ S3R* 8; J$.-;K@ 0n re Pelae, 88
Phil <;D J$./2K@ 1alili v. !ourt o2 0ndustrial Relations, $2; S3R* $$/ J$.-<K@ *rectors, 0nc. v. 3ational 'abor Relations
!ommission, $;; S3R* D/- J$.--K@ and Mortel v. Aspiras, $00 Phil <-; J$.<;K.
$<
4ebastian v. !alis, 288 S3R* $ J$...K and 4abayle v. (andayag, $<- S3R* 8.D J$.--K.
$;
2.- S3R* $ J/002K ,ith note9 The 3ode of Professional Responsibilit% reEuires in 3anon $0 that :a la,%er o,es candor,
fairness and (ood faith to the court:@ 3anon -, :a la,%er shall conduct hi)self ,ith courtes%, fairness and candor to,ards his
professional collea(ues = = =:@ and 3anon $<, :a la,%er shall observe candor, fairness and lo%alt% in all his dealin(s and
transactions ,ith his client.:
$D
Para(raph < 4b5 of respondent?s 3o))ent dated 02 Dece)ber $..-, Rollo, Vol. I at p. /;-.
$-
2$ S3R* <;/ J$.D0K.