5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 020

VOL. 20, JUNE 27, 1967 447

Calo vs. Degamo

*
Adm. Case No. 516. June 27, 1967.

TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR., petitioner, vs. ESTEBAN

DEGAMO, respondent.

Attorneys; Disbarment; False answer to question in

application form.—Respondent lawyer, as applicant for the
position of Chief of Police, subscribed and swore to an
"Information Sheet". One item to be filled out reads: "Criminal or
police record, if any, including those which did not reach the
Court. (State the details of case and the final outcome)," to which,
respondent answered "None". Having accomplished the form,
respondent was appointed to the position applied for, However, on
the day the respondent swore to the information sheet, there was
pending against him in court a .criminal case for illegal
possession of explosive powder. Prior to 'the commencement of
this administrative case, he was charged in court with perjury on
the same facts upon which he is being sought to be disbarred.
Respondent's claim, that his answer "None" to the aforequoted
questionnaire was made in good faith, is plainly untenable. The
questionnaire was simple, couched in ordinary terms and devoid
of legalism; hence, it needed no interpretation. It only 'called for a
simple information. That it asked for cases "which did not reach
the Court" entirely disproves respondent's technical twist to the
question as referring to final judgments or convictions.
Same; Prescription; Defense is not available in disbarment
case.—The ordinary statutes of limitation have no application to
disbarment proceedings, nor does the circumstance that the facts
set up as a ground for disbarment constitute a crime, prosecution
for which in a criminal proceeding is barred by limitation, affect
the disbarment proceeding.

_______________

* The "Resolution" of the Court on the "Motion for Reconsideration" was

promulgated on August 30, 1967 and is printed in this volume.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e78550c15cd5a06003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 020

448

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Calo vs. Degamo

Same; Pendency of criminal case is not a prejudicial question;

Violation of criminal law does not preclude disbarment.—The
pendency of the perjury case is not a prejudicial question, since
the ground for disbarment in the present proceeding is not for
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude but for gross
misconduct. A violation of a criminal law is not a bar to
disbarment. An acquittal is no obstacle to cancellation of the
lawyer's license.
Same; Dishonesty in denying under oath existence of criminal
record.—Respondent stresses that there is no cause of action
against him for disbarment because the information sheet is not
required by law but only by the Civil Service Commission. Held:
This argument is beside the point. The issue is whether or not he
acted honestly when he denied under oath the existence against
him of any criminal or police record, including cases that did not
reach the court. In this, he did not tell the truth. He deliberately
concealed it in order to secure an appointment in his own favor.
He, therefore, failed to maintain that high degree of morality
expected and required of a member of the bar. He has violated his
oath as a lawyer to "do no falsehood". It needs no reiteration that
the ethical standards applicable to a member of the bar, who
thereby automatically becomes a court officer, must necessarily be
one higher than that of the marketplace.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.

     Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. for complainant.

     Teodoro M. Luneta for respondent.
          Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor
Pedro A. Ramirez for investigators.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Disbarment
1
proceedings against the respondent Esteban
Degamo upon a verified letter-complaint of the petitioner,
Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., filed with this Court on 2 March
1962, and charging the former with "having committed
false statement under oath or perjury" in connection with
his appointment as Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e78550c15cd5a06003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 020

On 12 March 1962, this Court required the respondent

to file "an answer (not a motion to dismiss.)" After
interposing an unsuccessful motion for a bill of particulars,
he filed his answer on 29 May 1962 and this Court
accordingly referred the case to the Solicitor-General for
inves-

_______________

1 Admitted to the Bar on 7 February 1965.

449

VOL. 20, JUNE 27, 1967 449

Calo vs. Degamo

tigation, report and recommendation. In turn, the Solicitor

General referred the case to the Provincial Fiscal of
Agusan. The fiscal conducted an investigation. The
petitioner adduced evidence, but not the respondent,
because on the date set for hearing, on 25 July 1964,
following several postponements, the respondent failed to
attend, despite due notice, for which reason the
investigating fiscal considered the respondent as having
waived his right to present evidence. Thereafter, the fiscal
forwarded the record of the investigation to the Solicitor
General. On the basis thereof, the Solicitor General filed
his report and a complaint with this Court, recommending
the disbarment of the respondent, for gross misconduct.
No evidence having been submitted by the respondent,
the following facts are either unrebutted or admitted:
On 17 January 1959, respondent Esteban Degamo, as an
applicant to the position of Chief of Police of Carmen,
Agusan, subscribed and swore to a filled-out '-Information
Sheet" before Mayor Jose Malimit of the same
municipality. The sheet called for answers about name,
personal circumstances, educational attainment, civil
service eligibility and so forth. One item required to be
filled out reads:

"Criminal or police record, if any, including those which did not

reach the Court. (State the details of case and the final
outcome.)"—

to which respondent answered, "None."

Having accomplished the form, the respondent was

appointed by the mayor to the position applied for.
However, on the day the respondent swore to the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e78550c15cd5a06003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 020

information sheet, there was pending against him, and two

(2) other coaccused, a criminal case in the Court of First
Instance of Bohol 2
(No. 2646) for illegal possession of
explosive powder.
Prior to the commencement of this administrative case,
the respondent was also charged in an information, dated
23 September 1960, for perjury, in the Court of First
Instance of Agusan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2194,
on the same facts upon which he is now proceeded against
as a member of the Philippine bar.

_______________

2 The information bears data of 3 July 1958 (Exh. "B-1").

450

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Calo vs. Degamo

In his defense, the respondent claims that his answer

"None" to the aforequoted questionnaire was made in good
faith, it being his honest interpretation of the particular
question (heretofore quoted) that it referred to a final
judgment or conviction and that Criminal Case No. 2646
was not a criminal or police record.
The defense is plainly untenable, The questionnaire was
simple, couched in ordinary terms and devoid of legalism;
hence, it needed no interpretation. It only called for a
simple information. That it asked for records "which did
not reach the Court" entirely disproves respondent's
technical twist to the question as referring to final
judgments or convictions.
Petitioner's letter-complaint was filed on 2 March 1962
while the act of the respondent complained of was
committed on 17 January 1959. Without explaining how
and upon what authority, respondent invokes the defense
of prescription. This defense does not lie; the rule is that—

"The ordinary statutes of limitation have no application to

disbarment proceedings, nor does the circumstance that the facts
set up as a ground for disbarment constitute a crime, prosecution
for which in a criminal proceeding is barred by limitation, affect
the disbarment proceeding, x x x." (5 Am. Jur. 434).

Nor is the pendency of Criminal Case No. 2194 (for perjury)

a prejudicial question, since the ground for disbarment in
the present proceeding is not for conviction of a crime

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e78550c15cd5a06003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 020

involving moral turpitude but for gross misconduct. A

violation of a criminal law is not a bar to disbarment (6
Moran 242, 1963 Ed., citing the case of In re Montagne and
Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577), and an acquittal is no obstacle to
cancellation of the lawyer's license. (In re Del Rosario, 52
Phil. 399).
Respondent Degamo stresses that there is no cause of
action against him because the information sheet is not
required by law but only by the Civil Service Commission.
This argument is beside the point. The issue is whether or
not he acted honestly when he denied under oath the
existence against him of any criminal or police record,
including those that did not reach the court. In this, he did
not tell the truth. He deliberately concealed it in order

451

VOL. 20, JUNE 29, 1967 451

People vs. Baquiran

to secure an appointment in his own favor. He, therefore,

failed to maintain that high degree of morality expected
and required of a member of the bar (Toledo vs. Toledo,
Adm. Case No. 266, 27 April 1963; Mortel vs. Aspiras,
Adm. Case No. 145, 28 Dec. *1956; Bolivar vs. Simbol, Adm.
Case No. 377, 29 April 1966 ), and he has violated his oath
as a lawyer to "do no falsehood". It needs no reiteration
that the ethical standards applicable to a member of the
bar, who thereby automatically becomes a court officer,
must necessarily be one higher than that of the market
place.
The facts being clear and undisputed. respondent's
insistence upon patent technical excuses disentitle him to
leniency from his Court.
For the foregoing reasons, respondent Esteban Degamo
is hereby disbarred, and his name ordered stricken from
the roll of attorneys. So ordered.

     Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P.,

Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

Note.—The accused, who in his civil service application

for the patrolman's examination, answered "No" the
question of whether he had been accused of a crime, when
in truth he had been accused in court of physical injuries,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e78550c15cd5a06003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 020

was convicted of perjury (People vs. Cruz, L-15132, May 25,

1960).

___________

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e78550c15cd5a06003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6