G.R. No. 516, June 27, 1967
TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR., petitioner, vs. ESTEBAN DEGAMO, respondent.

FACTS

Disbarment proceedings were initiated against respondent Esteban Degamo, a member of the Philippine Bar, based on a verified letter-complaint filed by Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. on March 2, 1962. The complaint charged Degamo with having committed a false statement under oath or perjury in connection with his appointment as Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan. On January 17, 1959, Degamo, as an applicant for the position, subscribed and swore to a filled-out “Information Sheet” before Mayor Jose Malimit. In response to an item asking for “Criminal or police record, if any, including those which did not reach the Court. (State the details of case and the final outcome.)”, Degamo answered “None.” At the time he swore to this answer, there was a pending criminal case against him and two others for illegal possession of explosive powder in the Court of First Instance of Bohol (Criminal Case No. 2646). Prior to this administrative case, Degamo was also charged with perjury (Criminal Case No. 2194) in the Court of First Instance of Agusan based on the same facts. The case was referred for investigation, during which the petitioner presented evidence, but the respondent failed to attend the hearing despite due notice and was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Esteban Degamo should be disbarred for gross misconduct for making a false statement under oath in his Information Sheet by concealing a pending criminal case.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of respondent Esteban Degamo. The Court found his defense that he answered “None” in good faith, interpreting the question to refer only to final judgments or convictions, to be untenable. The question was clear and asked for records “including those which did not reach the Court,” which disproved his interpretation. The Court held that by deliberately concealing the pending case to secure an appointment, Degamo failed to maintain the high degree of morality required of a member of the bar and violated his oath as a lawyer to “do no falsehood.” The Court rejected his defenses of prescription, stating that statutes of limitation do not apply to disbarment proceedings, and the pendency of the criminal case for perjury was not a prejudicial question, as disbarment is for gross misconduct, not merely conviction of a crime. Consequently, respondent Esteban Degamo was disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys.