Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/14
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 516 June 27, 1967
TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR., petitioner,
vs.
ESTEBAN DEGAMO, respondent.
Teodoro O. Calo, Jr. for complainant.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor Pedro A,.
Ramirez for investigators.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Disbarment proceedings against the respondent Esteban Degamo
1
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.
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 investigation,
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 information sheet, there was pending against him, and two
(2) other co-accused, a criminal case in the Court of First Instance of
Bohol (No. 2646) for illegal possession of explosive powder.
2
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.
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.1äwphï1.ñët
1

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/14
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 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, . . . (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 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 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.
Footnotes
*
The "Resolution of the Court on the " Motion for Reconsideration"
was promulgated on August 30, 1967 and is printed in this volume.
1
Admitted to the Bar on 7 February 1965.
2
The information bears data of 3 July 1958 (Exh. "B-1").
**
16 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 623.



RULE I
TITLE AND CONSTRUCTION
2

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/14

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 14 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No. 516 ? ? ? ? ? ? June 27, 1967 TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR.,?petitioner,? vs. ESTEBAN DEGAMO,?respondent. Teodoro O. Calo, Jr. for complainant. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor Pedro A,. Ramirez for investigators. REYES, J.B.L.,?J.: Disbarment proceedings against the respondent Esteban Degamo1?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. 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 investigation, 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 ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4