Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 1011)
Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 1011)
Facts:
C. Noli Aragon v. Atty. Faustino R. Carreon, Adm. Case No. 1011, November 26, 1973, the Supreme Court First Division, Ruiz Castro, J., writing for the Court. Complainant C. Noli Aragon filed a verified letter-complaint with the Court on June 11, 1971, charging respondent Atty. Faustino R. Carreon with: (1) engaging in the private practice of law without the necessary permit while in the civil service; and (2) harassment and malpractice in appearing against Aragon in several judicial proceedings.Respondent admitted that, while employed in the House of Representatives, he acted as counsel in three matters: (a) as counsel for Aragon (intervenor) in Court of Tax Appeals Case No. 942, Philippine Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; (b) for the heirs of Alfredo Quijano in Civil Case No. 79951, Court of First Instance, Manila Branch XVI; and (c) for Magdaleno Petrasanta in a falsification complaint docketed I.S. 26417. Carreon produced a written permit issued on January 26, 1959 by then-Speaker Daniel Romualdez authorizing him to appear as counsel for friends and relatives at a nominal fee; the permit bore no expiry and was never formally revoked.
The Court examined the second specification in light of antecedent events: in 1960 Aragon had retained Carreon (and Atty. Cleto Leus) to assist in a tax-evasion matter involving Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation; the lawyers prepared affidavits that led to a BIR assessment, but the attorney-client relationship ended thereafter and Aragon later engaged other counsel. The three contested appearances occurred years after that relationship had ceased: Carreon was a prosecution witness for Lilia V. Perez in a 1970 estafa complaint (Aragon does not deny the written contract with Perez); he represented Quijano’s heirs to execute an existing judgment in CFI Civil Case No. 79951; and he represented Petrasanta in a falsification case where Carreon did not solicit the case but later assisted in locating a co-defendant for service.
The Court of First Division heard the administrative complaint and, after reviewing documentary and testimonial evidence and the Solicitor-General’s view, dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The matter was an original administrative proceeding filed with the Supreme Court; no intermediate appellate forum is reported.
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Carreon, while employed by the House of Representatives, violate the civil service rule prohibiting engagement in private practice without authority?
- Did respondent commit harassment or malpractice by appearing as counsel or witness adverse to complainant Aragon in the three specified cases?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)