in Re Argosino
in Re Argosino
18 Jul
FACTS:
Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking the Lawyers
Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide from a hazing incident. Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court.
He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath
and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral character he now possess,
he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five (5)
trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the others
who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of their hazing victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath, sign the Rolls of
Attorneys, and practice law.
HELD:
YES. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the required
good moral character as required before taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of
Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral
fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyers
Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice of law, and that the community
assistance he had started is expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate members of the
society.
lawphil.net
The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone
who demands it. Rather, it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified. 2 The
essentiality of good moral character in those who would be lawyers is stressed in the following
excerpts which we quote with approval and which we regard as having persuasive effect:
In Re Farmer: 3
xxx xxx xxx
This "upright character" prescribed by the statute, as a condition precedent
to the applicant's right to receive a license to practice law in North
Carolina, and of which he must, in addition to other requisites, satisfy the
court, includes all the elements necessary to make up such a character. It is
something more than an absence of bad character. It is the good name
which the applicant has acquired, or should have acquired, through
association with his fellows. It means that he must have conducted himself
as a man of upright character ordinarily would, or should, or does. Such
character expresses itself, not in negatives nor in following the line of
least resistance, but quite often, in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it
is right, and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
And we may pause to say that this requirement of the statute is eminently
proper. Consider for a moment the duties of a lawyer. He is sought as
counsellor, and his advice comes home, in its ultimate effect, to every
man's fireside. Vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient
of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with is client's property,
reputation, his life, his all. An attorney at law is a sworn officer of the
Court, whose chief concern, as such, is to aid the administration of justice.
...
xxx xxx xxx 4
In Re Application of Kaufman, 5 citing Re Law Examination of 1926
(1926) 191 Wis 359, 210 NW 710:
It can also be truthfully said that there exists nowhere greater temptations
to deviate from the straight and narrow path than in the multiplicity of
circumstances that arise in the practice of profession. For these reasons the
wisdom of requiring an applicant for admission to the bar to possess a
high moral standard therefore becomes clearly apparent, and the board of
bar examiners as an arm of the court, is required to cause a minute
examination to be made of the moral standard of each candidate for
admission to practice. . . . It needs no further argument, therefore, to arrive
inadvertent) infliction of severe physical injuries which proximately led to the death of the
unfortunate Raul Camaligan, certainly indicated serious character flaws on the part of those who
inflicted such injuries. Mr. Argosino and his co-accused had failed to discharge their moral duty
to protect the life and well-being of a "neophyte" who had, by seeking admission to the fraternity
involved, reposed trust and confidence in all of them that, at the very least, he would not be
beaten and kicked to death like a useless stray dog. Thus, participation in the prolonged and
mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that
moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the
participant was then possessed of good moral character.
Now that the original period of probation granted by the trial court has expired, the Court is
prepared to consider de novo the question of whether applicant A.C. Argosino has purged himself
of the obvious deficiency in moral character referred to above. We stress that good moral
character is a requirement possession of which must be demonstrated not only at the time of
application for permission to take the bar examinations but also, and more importantly, at the
time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney's oath of office.
Mr. Argosino must, therefore, submit to this Court, for its examination and consideration,
evidence that he may be now regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral
character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar. His evidence may consist, inter alia,
of sworn certifications from responsible members of the community who have a good reputation
for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time, particularly
since the judgment of conviction was rendered by Judge Santiago. He should show to the Court
how he has tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the
deceased student and to the community at large. Mr. Argosino must, in other words, submit
relevant evidence to show that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fit for
admission to the ancient and learned profession of the law.
Finally, Mr. Argosino is hereby DIRECTED to inform this Court, by appropriate written
manifestation, of the names and addresses of the father and mother (in default thereof, brothers
and sisters, if any, of Raul Camaligan), within ten (10) day from notice hereof. Let a copy of this
Resolution be furnished to the parents or brothers and sisters, if any, of Raul Camaligan.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J. is on leave.
Footnotes
1 There is some indication that clerical error attended the grant of
permission to take the 1993 Bar Examinations. The En Banc Resolution of
this Court dated 24 August 1993 entitled "Re: Applications to Take the
1993 Bar Examinations," stated on page 2 thereof:
PADILLA, J.:
Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The
Court however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide.
The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from the
death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September
1991. Petitioner and seven (7) other accused initially entered pleas of not guilty
to homicide charges. The eight (8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas
and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.
On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered judgment dated 11
February 1993 imposing on each of the accused a sentence of imprisonment
of from two (2) years four (4) months :and one (1) day to four (4) years.
On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's application for
probation.
On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a report dated 6
April 1994 submitted by the Probation Officer recommending petitioner's
of the Court.
The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict
intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in
the effective and efficient administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this
Court not only to "weed out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble
profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to prevent "misfits" from
taking the lawyer's oath, thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers
which in recent years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
The resolution of the issue before us required weighing and reweighing of the
reasons for allowing or disallowing petitioner's admission to the practice of law.
The senseless beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident
absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar since they were
totally irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled for.
In the 13 July 1995 resolution in this case we stated:
. . . participation in the prolonged and mindless physical behavior,
[which] makes impossible a finding that the participant [herein
petitioner] was then possessed of good moral character. 1
In the same resolution, however, we stated that the Court is prepared to
consider de novo the question of whether petitioner has purged himself of the
obvious deficiency in moral character referred to above.
Before anything else, the Court understands and shares the sentiment of Atty.
Gilbert Camaligan. The death of one's child is, for a parent, a most traumatic
experience. The suffering becomes even more pronounced and profound in
cases where the death is due to causes other than natural or accidental but
due to the reckless imprudence of third parties. The feeling then becomes a
struggle between grief and anger directed at the cause of death.
Atty. Camaligan's statement before the Court- manifesting his having forgiven
the accused is no less than praiseworthy and commendable. It is exceptional
for a parent, given the circumstances in this case, to find room for forgiveness.
However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is still not in a position to state if
petitioner is now morally fit to be a lawyer.
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al
Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and
practice the legal profession with the following admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that
Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various
certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic
duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for
the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the
doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash,
temerarious and uncalculating.
We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or
formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his
actions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's
oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration of justice will
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned.
The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with the assistance
he has been giving to his community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better
position to render legal and other services to the more unfortunate members of
society.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is hereby
ALLOWED to take the lawyer's oath on a date to be set by the Court, to sign
the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to practice the legal profession.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,
Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Resolution, p. 8.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation