Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 1011)
Factual Background
The complainant initiated the administrative case through a verified letter-complaint filed with the Court on June 11, 1971. In support of the first specification, the respondent Carreon admitted that during his employment in the House of Representatives, Congress, Manila, he acted as counsel in three enumerated cases: (1) for the complainant in the Court of Tax Appeals, Case 942, titled “Philippine Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C. Noli Aragon, Intervenor”; (2) for the heirs of Alfredo Quijano in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVI, in Civil Case 79951; and (3) for Magdaleno L. Petrasanta regarding a charge of falsification of public or official document filed with the office of the City Fiscal of Manila, titled “Magdaleno Petrasanta, complainant vs. C. Noli Aragon and Benjamin Castro, respondents”, docketed as Case I. S. 26417.
The respondent claimed authority to appear as counsel based on the written permit issued on January 26, 1959 by Speaker Daniel Romualdez. The complainant assailed the permit’s validity on two grounds: first, that subsequent Speakers had taken office without renewing the permit; and second, that the permit had “become stale” because it had been issued in 1959 and purportedly could not be relied upon as authority for the respondent’s appearances during the period 1963 to 1971. It was undisputed that the permit bore no expiry date and had never been revoked or withdrawn.
As to the second specification, the complainant attributed harassment and malpractice to the respondent’s participation in three later matters. These included: (a) the respondent acting as principal prosecution witness in a complaint for estafa filed by Lilia V. Perez against the complainant; (b) the respondent acting as counsel for the heirs of Alfredo Quijano in Civil Case 79951, where the complainant was a defendant; and (c) the respondent allegedly soliciting the complainant’s engagement and thereafter appearing as private prosecutor in a criminal case filed by Magdaleno Petrasanta for falsification of public document.
The decision narrated a background to show the nature of the respondent’s earlier professional engagement with the complainant. In 1960, the complainant sought help from Magdaleno Petrasanta, then an examiner in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, regarding a tax evasion case against Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation, which the complainant was then researching. Petrasanta referred the complainant to Atty. Cleto Leus and the respondent. A retainer agreement signed by the complainant directed the lawyers to render legal services on a contingent basis, specifically for “investigation, research, gathering of datas, preparation of materials and papers.” The complainant claimed the lawyers rendered no legal service. The evidence, however, showed that they prepared an affidavit of the complainant filed with the Secretary of Finance denouncing alleged tax evasion, and another affidavit with detailed factual references filed with the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Internal Revenue on March 30, 1960. These offices gave due course to the complaint and led to an assessment against the corporation in the amount of P2,507,693.17 and the issuance on July 1, 1960 of a warrant of distraint and levy on the corporation’s properties for that amount. Thereafter, the lawyer-client relationship appeared to have terminated because the complainant was later represented in the Court of Tax Appeals by another counsel, Atty. De Santos, and only once did the complainant ask Leus and Carreon to substitute.
First Specification: Private Practice Without Permit
The Court addressed the charge that the respondent engaged in private practice of law without the necessary permit while in the civil service. The Court relied on Section 12 of Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which allows a civil service officer or employee to engage in a profession if the officer has written permission from the department head. In the Court’s framing, the department head may allow a subordinate officer or employee to engage in the profession.
The Court treated the Speaker’s issuance of the respondent’s permit as being made in the Speaker’s capacity as department head or administrative functionary. It held that the permit’s effectivity should be deemed to continue and subsist until revoked or withdrawn, despite the fact that other Speakers of the House had succeeded after Speaker Romualdez. The decision noted that the permit bore no expiry date and had never been revoked. For that reason, the Court held that the respondent could not be said to have violated the civil service rule against engaging in the legal profession.
The Court also addressed the complainant’s standing to charge the respondent under that civil service rule, observing that the complainant was not the proper party because he himself procured the respondent’s services as counsel in one of the three cases that later became the subject of the administrative complaint.
Second Specification: Alleged Harassment and Malpractice
The Court then examined the second specification. It identified the acts relied upon by the complainant as the respondent’s alleged roles in three matters. It addressed each in turn, and it considered whether these acts, taken together, supported a finding of harassment, malpractice, or unethical conduct.
The First Charge: Estafa Complaint and Prosecution Witness
The Court addressed the first charge that the respondent acted as the principal prosecution witness in a complaint for estafa filed on May 27, 1970 by Lilia V. Perez against the complainant. The decision recited that the complainant entered into a written contract with Perez for financial assistance of P25,000, executed in Perez’s house and in the respondent’s presence and that of Atty. Leus. The decision emphasized two exculpatory points. First, although the respondent acted as a witness against the complainant in 1970, the respondent’s relationship with the complainant as counsel had ended about a decade earlier, in 1960, as shown by the earlier tax-related engagement. Second, the complainant did not deny having executed the contract with Perez. On these premises, the Court treated the witness role as insufficient to establish harassment.
The Second Charge: Civil Case 79951 and “Special Defense”
The second charge involved Civil Case 79951, a suit initiated by Alfredo Quijano through Atty. Guillermo Magadia, Jr., in which the complainant was the defendant. The complainant admitted the allegations but raised a “special defense” anchored on an inability to pay due to the complainant’s alleged inability to collect reward money from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings on June 8, 1970. After Quijano died, the widow retained the respondent and another lawyer, Atty. Natalio Panganiban, a son-in-law of Petrasanta, who was a friend of the widow.
The decision recounted that the respondent and Panganiban moved for substitution of parties, execution of judgment (which was partially satisfied), and examination of the judgment debtor. The Court adopted the view that the participation of the respondent did not constitute harassment because the complainant had practically confessed judgment. The Court further treated the posture of the case as undercutting the complainant’s characterization of the respondent’s later appearance as vexatious conduct.
The Third Charge: Falsification Case and Private Prosecutor Representation
The third charge concerned a criminal case for falsification of public document filed by Petrasanta against the complainant and Ben Castro. The complaint stated Castro’s residence as 558 Remedios St., Ermita, Manila. The case was set for hearing on December 11, 1970, and Petrasanta asked the respondent to represent him. The respondent agreed. The hearing was postponed because Petrasanta and Castro failed to appear, and Castro had not been served with subpoena at the address stated in the complaint. Two additional subpoenas to that same address were returned unserved.
On March 29, 1971, Petrasanta informed the respondent that Castro was operating a canteen at the WHO Building in Manila. The respondent relayed this information to the fiscal, who then caused issuance of another subpoena u
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 1011)
- The complainant, C. Noli Aragon, filed a verified letter-complaint against the respondent, Atty. Faustino R. Carreon, before the Court.
- The complaint was filed on June 11, 1971 and carried two principal specifications.
- The Court’s Decision dismissed the complaint and absolved Atty. Carreon of the charges.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- C. Noli Aragon appeared as the complainant in an administrative complaint for alleged misconduct as a member of the Bar.
- Atty. Faustino R. Carreon appeared as the respondent and admitted a material aspect of his questioned conduct while employed in the House of Representatives.
- The Court proceeded to determine whether the respondent’s acts constituted (1) unauthorized private legal practice despite civil service employment and (2) harassment and malpractice.
Key Factual Allegations
- The complaint alleged that the respondent engaged in the private practice of law without the necessary permit and while in the civil service.
- The complaint further alleged that the respondent committed acts of harassment and malpractice against the complainant.
- The first specification focused on the respondent’s appearances as counsel in three identified cases during his House of Representatives employment.
- The second specification focused on the respondent’s subsequent participation as witness or counsel in matters alleged to be adverse to the complainant.
First Specification: Civil Service Practice
- The respondent admitted that while he was employed in the House of Representatives, Congress, Manila, he acted as counsel in three cases.
- The three admitted cases were: Court of Tax Appeals Case 942 involving “Philippine Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C. Noli Aragon, Intervenor”; Civil Case 79951 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVI, involving the heirs of Alfredo Quijano; and a falsification of public or official document matter involving “Magdaleno Petrasanta, complainant vs. C. Noli Aragon and Benjamin Castro, respondents” docketed as Case I. S. 26417.
- The respondent relied on a written permit issued on January 26, 1959 by the then Speaker of the House, Daniel Romualdez, to appear as counsel for friends and relatives at a nominal fee.
- The complainant assailed the permit’s effectiveness because it had allegedly never been renewed after the tenure of Speaker Romualdez and had become stale due to the 1959 issuance.
- The complainant also argued that the respondent could not rely on the permit during the period 1963 to 1971.
- It was not disputed that the permit had no expiry date and that it had never been revoked or withdrawn.
Civil Service Rule Application
- The Court invoked Section 12 of Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which allows a civil service officer or employee to engage in a profession upon written permission from the Department Head.
- The Court treated the Speaker of the House as acting as a Department Head or administrative functionary when the permit was issued.
- The Court held that the effectivity of the permit should continue until revoked or withdrawn, despite changes in the person occupying the position of Speaker.
- The Court concluded that the respondent therefore could not be found to have violated the civil service rule prohibiting unauthorized engagement in his profession as a lawyer.
- The Court additionally held that the complainant was not the proper party to level this first charge because the complainant himself procured the respondent’s services as counsel in one of the cases included in his own complaint.
Second Specification: Alleged Harassment
- The Court treated the second specification as comprising three alleged adverse acts by the respondent toward the complainant.
- The alleged acts were: the respondent’s being the principal prosecution witness in a complaint for estafa filed against the complainant; the respondent’s appearance as counsel for the heirs of Alfredo Quijano in Civil Case 79951 where the complainant was a defendant; and the respondent’s solicitation of his engagement and subsequent appearance as private prosecutor in a criminal case for falsification of public document instituted by Magdaleno Petrasanta against the complainant.
- The Court evaluated the evidence showing the respondent’s earlier lawyer-client relationship with the complainant and the circumstances under which each later appearance occurred.
Earlier Lawyer-Client Relationship
- The Court found that in 1960, C. Noli Aragon sought assistance from Magdaleno Petrasanta, an examiner in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, regarding a tax evasion matter Aragon was researching.
- Petrasanta referred Aragon to Atty. Cleto Leus and the respondent Carreon.
- Aragon signed a retainer agreement with Leus