G.R. No. A.C. No. 7348. September 27, 2016
ROUEL YAP PARAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUSTO P. PARAS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Rouel Yap Paras filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against his father, Atty. Justo J. Paras, alleging violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The complaint stemmed from Atty. Paras’s voluntary offer to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of six parcels of land. Five of these properties were the subject of a pending civil case for annulment of title (Civil Case No. 02-028-BY) filed by Rouel against his father. Rouel discovered the DAR proceedings upon receiving a copy of a Notice of Coverage. His counsel subsequently obtained documents from the DAR, including a 2004 letter from Atty. Paras identifying himself as the “landowner” and offering the properties, and an authorization letter he issued to a representative to facilitate the process.
The complainant alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in deceitful, dishonest, and unlawful conduct by misrepresenting himself as the owner and voluntarily offering properties he did not own, which were under litigation, to the DAR. He argued this was a scheme to dispossess the rightful owners. In his defense, Atty. Paras admitted the pending litigation over the properties but claimed his actions were a legitimate exercise under the CARP’s Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme. He also contended the complaint was similar to a prior case filed by his wife. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the respondent liable and recommended disbarment, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Justo J. Paras should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR by offering for CARP coverage properties he did not own and which were subject to pending litigation.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Paras is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation and disbarred the respondent. The legal logic rests on the fundamental duties of a lawyer to uphold honesty and the integrity of the legal profession. A lawyer’s oath and the CPR mandate candor, fairness, and avoidance of deceitful conduct. Atty. Paras’s act of voluntarily offering the properties to the DAR while representing himself as the “landowner” constituted gross misrepresentation. This was not a mere error but a deliberate act of dishonesty, as he was fully aware that his ownership was directly contested in a pending court case filed by his own son. His claim of utilizing the VOS mechanism does not excuse the misrepresentation; the CARP process requires good faith and legitimate ownership interest.
The Court emphasized that the respondent’s actions were aggravated by his disciplinary record, having been previously suspended twice for similar misconduct involving the same properties and family members. His pattern of exploiting his legal knowledge to engage in schemes against his family demonstrates a character unfit for the practice of law. Dishonesty, especially when committed by a lawyer in a professional capacity, strikes at the heart of the legal profession’s integrity. The protection of the public and the preservation of the bar’s dignity necessitate severe sanction. Consequently, disbarment is the appropriate penalty to remove from the profession a lawyer who has persistently violated its most basic ethical tenets.