perbandingan acrylic, kaca dengan polycarbonat, keuntungan dan kerugian serta aplikasinya
OBDeleven PRO vs VCDS ( VAG COM ) vs VCP ( Vag Can Pro) vs Carista vs Carly for VAG vs Launch EasyDiag supported functions CompareFull description
PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
A.C. # 4947, February 14, 2005
again st Atty. Justo Paras (respondent) praying for the FACTS: Rosa Yap-Paras (Petitioner) filed a case against disbarment of the latter, accusing that he committed acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, and violation of oath as a lawyer committed by the latter. The respondent was found guilty by the SC of falsehood and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a similar sim ilar offense committed in the future will yield a harsher penalty. The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the court as per his sus pension. During its pendency, petitioner filed a Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment Dis barment under the ground that Atty. Paras did not heed the SC’s suspension order and was still s till practicing his legal profession. Eventually, the MR was denied by the SC and asked respondent to comment on the current motion filed against him by the petitioner within 10 days. The respondent filed a Manifestation with the court after more than a year, stating that he has already complied with the 1-year suspension. In response, the SC issued another resolution that compels respondent to explain why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the previous resolution. Respondent replied by denying the previous allegations made by petitioner that he was engaged in the practice of law during his suspension.
ISSUES: (1) Whether or not Atty. Justo Paras should be disbarred for violating the SC’s suspension order by practicing his legal profession during his suspension period. (2) Whether or not Atty. Justo Paras should be disbarred by failing to file a comment on time as demanded by the SC.
HELD: (1)
(2)
NO. The SC found no factual basis on the petitioner’s allegations that the respondent practiced law during his suspension. Respondent even took the initiative to inform the lower courts of his one-year suspension sus pension from the practice of law, as the SC noted. NO. While it is clear that resolutions of the SC are not mere requests that can be brushed aside or partially complied with and that the SC’s authority should always be respected and observed, the SC held that the respondent’s failing health and surgical opera tions that he underwent are reasonable excuses for him to not be able to file his comment on time. Moreover, the SC took note that respondent expressed his profound regret and immeasurable sorrow for not being able to comply with the court’s order. Hence, a REPRIMAND with WARNING was deemed sufficient punishment by the SC for respondent’s failures, coupled with a reminder that a more drastic punishment puni shment shall be meted out accordingly if such offense shall be repeated by the respondent.
