AC 5333; (March, 2017) (Digest)
A.C. No. 5333. March 13, 2017. ROSA YAP PARAS, Complainant, vs. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS, Respondent.
FACTS
The Court previously suspended respondent Atty. Justo de Jesus Paras from the practice of law for one year, effective May 23, 2001, for falsification and immorality. During his suspension, complainant Rosa Yap Paras filed several motions for contempt, alleging respondent continued to practice law. Specifically, she claimed he appeared in court on February 21, 2001, and that his associate, Atty. Richard Enojo, filed pleadings he prepared. Respondent later filed a Motion to Lift Suspension on May 27, 2002, informing the Court his suspension period ended on May 22, 2002. He admitted accepting new clients after filing this motion. Complainant further manifested he appeared in court on July 25, 2002, while his motion was pending.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether respondent is administratively liable for practicing law during his suspension, and (2) whether his suspension should be lifted.
RULING
Yes, respondent is liable for violating his suspension order. The lifting of a suspension is not automatic upon the lapse of the period stated in the Court’s decision. A suspended lawyer must first secure a positive order from the Court lifting the suspension before resuming practice. Respondent’s suspension became final on May 23, 2001. While the one-year term ended on May 22, 2002, no Court order had lifted it. Therefore, his admissions of accepting new clients and appearing in court in July 2002 constituted unauthorized practice in willful defiance of the suspension order. Such act is a serious transgression that undermines the Court’s authority and the integrity of the legal profession.
Consequently, the Court denied respondent’s Motion to Lift Suspension and found him administratively liable for violating the suspension order. The Court modified the IBP’s recommendation, which had erroneously revisited the original charges, and instead imposed an additional six-month suspension from the practice of law for his contemptuous conduct. This penalty is separate from his completed one-year suspension. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to obey a suspension order is paramount, and defiance warrants further sanction to uphold the administration of justice.