G.R. No. A.C. No. 7325; January 21, 2015
Dr. Domiciano F. Villahermosa, Sr., Complainant, vs. Atty. Isidro L. Caracol, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dr. Domiciano F. Villahermosa, Sr. was a respondent in two land cases before the DARAB involving parcels of land derived from OCT No. 433. The DARAB had ordered the cancellation of emancipation patents and titles, a decision affirmed on appeal. On September 25, 2002, respondent Atty. Isidro L. Caracol filed a motion for execution as “Add’l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant.” On December 20, 2005, Atty. Caracol filed a “Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition,” signing as “Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren Babela.” Villahermosa filed this disbarment complaint, alleging that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file these motions as he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs or the counsel of record, Atty. Fidel Aquino. Villahermosa specifically asserted that Efren Babela could not have authorized the second motion because he had died on July 23, 2004. Villahermosa claimed Atty. Caracol’s real client was Ernesto I. Aguirre, who allegedly bought the land. Villahermosa presented affidavits from Efren’s widow and daughter stating Efren never executed a waiver of rights in favor of Aguirre, that the land was sold to Villahermosa’s spouse, and that the signature on the waiver presented by Atty. Caracol was not Efren’s. Villahermosa averred that Atty. Caracol committed deceit, gross misconduct, and introduced falsified evidence. Atty. Caracol insisted he was authorized by Efren and Ernesto, had consulted Atty. Aquino, and was unaware of any waiver of rights.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Isidro L. Caracol is guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of his lawyer’s oath warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Isidro L. Caracol is guilty of violating his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. While a lawyer is presumed authorized under Rule 138, Section 21 of the Rules of Court, Atty. Caracol knew Efren Babela was deceased when he filed the second motion. As a prudent lawyer, he should have informed the court of his client’s death and presented authority from the successors-in-interest. His actions demonstrated a lack of candor and fairness towards the court. The Court also noted a separate opinion from a prior case (People v. Mendoza) commenting on Atty. Caracol’s lack of conscientiousness, highlighting the importance of a lawyer’s role. Atty. Caracol violated Canons 8 and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDED Atty. Isidro L. Caracol from the practice of law for ONE YEAR, effective upon finality of the resolution, with a warning against repetition.