THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015

DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA,
SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ISIDRO L.
CARACOL, Respondent.
Background of the case:
OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted
to Micael Babela who had 2 sons, Fernando
and Efren, as legal heirs, TCTs were issued in
their respective names.
When the Agrarian Reform Law was enacted,
emancipation patents and titles were issued to
Sps. Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the program,
who in turn sold the parcels of land to
complainants spouse, Raymunda
Villahermosa. Thereafter, a deed of absolute
sale was executed in favor of Raymunda.
In 1994, the DARAB issued a decision ordering
the cancellation of the emancipation patents
and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 stating
that it was not covered by the agrarian reform
law, which decision was appealed to and
affirmed by the DARAB Central Board and the
CA. The counsel on record for the plaintiff (the
Babelas) was Atty. Fidel Aquino, while
Villahermosa is the respondent.
In 2002, Atty. Caracol filed, as additional
counsel for the plaintiffs-movant, a Motion
for Execution with the DARAB Malaybalay,
Bukidnon praying for the full implementation of
the DARABs 1994 decision.
In 2005, Atty. Caracol filed a Motion for
Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and
Demolition, which he signed as counsel for
the plaintiff Efren Babela.
The Case:
Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging that
Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the
motions since he obtained no authority from
the plaintiffs and the counsel of record. More
so that Efren had already been dead for more
than a year prior to the filing of the second
motion. He also claimed that Atty. Caracols
real client was a certain Ernesto Aguirre, who
allegedly bought the same parcel of land.
Furthermore, he presented affidavits of Efrens
widow and daughter, both stating that Efren
never executed a waiver of rights, for the

signature in said waiver was different from

Efrens; and that said parcel of land was sold to
Villahermosa through a deed of sale. Thus,
Atty. Caracol committed deceit and gross
misconduct.
Villahermosa further claimed that Atty. Caracol
introduced the falsified and manufactured
Waiver of Rights to secure a favorable
judgment in one of the cases in favor of
Ernesto Aguirre, which Villahermosa also filed
a case for falsification against Ernesto Aguirre
and Atty. Caracol.
Atty. Caracol insists that Efren and Ernesto
authorized him to appear as additional
counsel. He said that he had consulted Atty.
Aquino who advised him to go ahead with the
filing. Moreover, he stated that he was not
aware that there was a waiver of rights
executed in Ernesto Aguirres favor.
IBP CBD (Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline) Report and
Recommendation
It found that Atty. Caracol committed deceitful
acts and misconduct when he failed to present
credible evidence to controvert the allegation
that he was not authorized by plaintiff or
counsel of record. He admitted that at the time
of the filing of the second motion, Efren was
dead. He did not explain as to how he obtained
such authority nor did he present any proof of
the authority.
It stated that Atty. Caracol misled and
misreperesented to the DARAB that he was
the counsel of Efren, violating his oath as a
lawyer. It thus recommended that Atty. Caracol
be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of 5 years.
IBP Board of Directors
It adopted the report and recommendation of
IBP CBD but modified the penalty to one year.
Ruling of Supreme Court
SC adopted the findings of the IBP.
Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney
has no power to act as counsel for a person
without being retained nor may he appear in
court without being employed unless by
leave of court.23 If an attorney appears on a

clients behalf without a retainer or the

requisite authority neither the litigant whom
he purports to represent nor the adverse
party may be bound or affected by his
appearance unless the purported client
ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed
authority.24 If a lawyer corruptly or willfully
appears as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority, he may be disciplined or
punished for contempt as an officer of the
court who has misbehaved in his official
transaction.
We must also take into consideration that
even if a lawyer is retained by a client, an
attorney-client relationship terminates upon
death of either client or the lawyer.
Here, Atty. Caracol was presumed to have
authority when he appeared in the
proceedings before the DARAB. The records
are unclear at what point his authority to
appear for Efren was questioned. Neither is
there any indication that Villahermosa in fact
questioned his authority during the course of
the proceedings.
However, Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had
already passed away at the time he filed the
Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of

Execution and Demolition. As an honest,

prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should
have informed the Court of his clients
passing and presented authority that he was
retained by the clients successors-in-interest
and thus the parties may have been
substituted.
Here, Atty. Caracol, as observed by the IBP
CBD, has been less than candid about his
representation. We also observe that he has
used underhanded means to attain his
purpose. Atty. Caracols blatant disregard of
his duties as a lawyer cannot be
countenanced. In view of his actions of
contravening his lawyers oath and in
violation of Canons 8 and 10 and Rule 10.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility we
deem it proper to suspend him from the
practice of law for a period of one year.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty.
Isidro L. Caracol GUILTY. Accordingly, we
SUSPEND respondent Atty. Isidro L. Caracol
from the practice of law for ONE
YEAR effective upon finality of this
Resolution, with a warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act in the future will
be dealt with more severely.