A[2.]CALO vs. DEGAMO not reach the court.

He deliberately concealed it in order to secure an

A.C. No. 516. June 27, 1967. appointment in his own favor. He, therefore, failed to maintain that
high degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar.
FACTS: He then has violated his oath as a lawyer to "do no falsehood".
Respondent Atty. Esteban Degamo, as applicant for the position of
In addition, the pendency of the perjury case is not a prejudicial
Chief of Police, subscribed and swore to an "Information Sheet". One item to
question, since the ground for disbarment in the present proceeding is
be filled out reads: "Criminal or police record, if any, including those which did
not for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude but for gross
not reach the Court. (State the details of case and the final outcome)," to which,
misconduct. A violation of a criminal law is not a bar to disbarment.
respondent answered "None". Having accomplished the form, respondent was
An acquittal is no obstacle to cancellation of the lawyer's license.
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
2. The ordinary statutes of limitation have no application to disbarment
criminal case for illegal possession of explosive powder. Prior to the
proceedings, nor does the circumstance that the facts set up as a
commencement of this administrative case, he was charged in court with
ground for disbarment constitute a crime, prosecution for which in a
perjury on the same facts upon which he is being sought to be disbarred.
criminal proceeding is barred by limitation, affect the disbarment
In his defense, the respondent claims that his answer "None" to the proceeding.
aforequoted questionnaire was made in good faith, it being his honest
Atty. Esteban Degamo is DISBARRED.
interpretation of the particular question that it referred to a final judgment or
conviction and that the criminal case against him was not a criminal or police
record. Moreover, respondent invokes the defense of prescription considering
that the letter-complaint was filed on 2 March 1962 while the act of the
respondent complained of was committed 3 years prior, or on 17 January
1959.
ISSUE:
1. WON respondent’s concealment of the criminal case against him in the
Information Sheet warrants disbarment. (YES)
2. WON prescription is an available defense in a disbarment case. (NO)
RULING:
1. The questionnaire only called for a simple information which needed
no interpretation. 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.

Respondent was not truthful when he denied under oath the existence
against him of any criminal or police record, including cases that did