Digests Calo and Agdoma

CALO VS. DEGAMO 20 SCRA 447 G.R. No. 516 Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L. Facts: On 2 March 1962, petitioner, Tranquilino O. Calo Jr., filed a disbarment case against respondent, Esteban Degamo on the grounds that the latter committed perjury. On 17 January 1959, the respondent subscribed and swore under oath before the mayor of Carmen, Agusan to the validity and accuracy of the information he provided in an information sheet. He was, then, applying for the post of Chief of Police of the said municipality. However, it was later found out that the respondent has a pending criminal case in the Court of First Instance of Bohol for illegal possession of explosive powder, and was charged of perjury in the Court of First Instance of Agusan on the same facts upon which this case proceeding has been brought. In the course of the court proceeding, the respondent used good faith as defense against the allegations filed against him. Issue: Whether or not respondent acted honestly when he denied under oath the existence against him of any police or criminal record. Ruling: Due to the preponderance of evidence, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent be disbarred and ordered the removal of latter’s name from the roll of attorneys.

AGDOMA VS. CELESTINO 6 SCRA 637 Ponente: Padilla, J. Facts: On 16 August 1955, the respondent Isalias Celestino filed an Ex Parte petition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. In the said petition, he represented his late grandfather” Julian Agdoma and asked that he be granted a copy of the latter’s title of land as it was burned during a fire. He supported his petition with an affidavit supposedly subscribed and sworn to by his late grandfather. Two days before the petition was filed, it was made to appear that the respondent bought his grandfather’s land for the amount of Php1,000 as described in an absolute deed of sale purportedly acknowledged by the notary public Julio Pequet. Thus when the Ex parte petition was granted, the Registry of Deeds issued a Transfer Certificate Title in the name of the respondent. Afterwards, the respondent mortgaged the land for Php425 to the Dagupan Branch of the Philippine National Bank. On 14 February 1957, the heirs of Julian Agdoma who are also the respondent’s aunts and uncle filed a disbarment case against him on the grounds that he has committed malpractice and misconduct as a lawyer and notary public. In the course of the proceeding, it was found out that not only were the documents he presented fictitious but also the public notary who acknowledged the sale of the late Mr. Agdoma’s land to the respondent was non-existent. Issue: Whether or not the respondent’s acts disentitle him as a member of the bar. Ruling: The Supreme Court held that oral and documentary evidences presented prove the respondent’s guilt. The evidences clearly show his wanton disregard for truth and honesty by forging and executing documents in behalf of his grandfather even when he knows that it was impossible for the latter to do such as he has already passed away. This is even more aggravated by his frequent absence during court proceedings. The court states that his failure to present himself in court during trial implies that he has waived his right and the opportunity to defend himself. Hence, he was barred from the practice of law.