G.R. No. 183399 - Ortiz vs. DHL Philippines Corp.

Disbarment proceedings were initiated against respondent Esteban Degamo based on a verified letter-complaint filed by petitioner Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. on March 2, 1962.
The complaint charged the respondent with having “committed false statement under oath or perjury” in the context of his appointment as Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan.

On March 12, 1962, the Court directed the respondent to file an answer (explicitly not a motion to dismiss).
After an unsuccessful motion for a bill of particulars, the respondent submitted his answer on May 29, 1962.
The case was referred to the Solicitor-General for further investigation and recommendation.
The Solicitor-General passed the case to the Provincial Fiscal of Agusan, who conducted an investigation.
The petitioner presented evidence at the hearing scheduled for July 25, 1964, while the respondent failed to attend, resulting in the assumption that he waived his right to present evidence.
Based on the investigation, the Solicitor-General filed a report and complaint recommending the respondent’s disbarment for gross misconduct.

On January 17, 1959, during his application for Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan, respondent Degamo completed and swore an “Information Sheet” before Mayor Jose Malimit.

The sheet inquired about basic personal details, educational background, eligibility for civil service, and specifically, any “criminal or police record, if any including those which did not reach the Court” with the request to state details of the case and its outcome.
The respondent answered “None.”

It was subsequently found that on the same day the respondent signed the information sheet, he was involved in pending criminal cases.

He had at least one pending criminal case in the Court of First Instance of Bohol (Criminal Case No. 2646) for illegal possession of explosive powder.
He was also charged on September 23, 1960, in another criminal case (Criminal Case No. 2194) for perjury involving similar facts.

He claimed that his interpretation of the question was limited to referring only to finalized judgments or convictions.
He asserted that Criminal Case No. 2646 did not constitute a “criminal or police record” under his understanding of the question.

He did not provide sufficient explanation or legal basis for the application of prescription.

The respondent’s explanation was rejected on the ground that the questionnaire was straightforward and required a simple, honest disclosure.
The Court emphasized that a lawyer, as a court officer, is held to a higher ethical standard and must not commit dishonesty under oath.
The deliberate concealment of relevant criminal records to secure a favorable appointment was seen as a breach of the moral and ethical obligations of a member of the bar.

Whether the respondent’s sworn answer on the “Information Sheet,” stating “None” for any criminal or police record, was false or misleading.

Did the respondent fail to disclose his pending criminal case, thus warranting the charge of perjury or false statement under oath?
Is the interpretation of the question by the respondent as referring only to finalized judgments or convictions legally tenable?

Whether procedural defenses such as the defense of prescription are applicable in disbarment proceedings.

Can the defense of prescription be invoked in a disbarment case where the ground is gross misconduct rather than a criminal conviction?
Does the pendency of a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 2194) for perjury have any bearing on the disbarment proceeding?

Whether the disbarment is justified given that the ethical standards expected of a lawyer require a higher degree of integrity.