IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH-TAKING OF SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. ARGOSINO, petitioner.
R E S O
L U T I O N
A criminal information was filed on 4 February 1992 with the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101, charging Mr. A.C. Argosino
along with thirteen (13) other individuals, with the crime of homicide in
connection with the death of one Raul Camaligan on 8 September 1991. The death
of Raul Camaligan stemmed from the infliction of severe physical injuries upon
him in the course of "hazing" conducted as part of university
fraternity initiation rites. Mr. Argosino and his co-accused then entered into
plea bargaining with the prosecution and as a result of such bargaining,
pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence.
This plea was accepted by the trial court. In a judgment dated 11 February
1993, each of the fourteen (14) accused individuals was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for a period ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day to four (4) years.
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed
an application for probation with the lower court. The application for
probation was granted in an Order dated 18 June 1993 issued by Regional Trial Court
Judge Pedro T. Santiago. The period of probation was set at two (2) years,
counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned
to supervise him.
Less than a month later, on 13 July 1993, Mr. Argosino filed
a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations. In this Petition,
he disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and his then probation status.
He was allowed to take the 1993 Bar Examinations in this Court's En Banc Resolution dated 14 August 1993. 1 He
passed the Bar Examination. He was not, however, allowed to take the lawyer's
oath of office.
On 15 April 1994, Mr. Argosino filed a Petition with this
Court to allow him to take the attorney's oath of office and to admit him to
the practice of law, averring that Judge Pedro T. Santiago had terminated his
probation period by virtue of an Order dated 11 April 1994. We note that his
probation period did not last for more than ten (10) months from the time of
the Order of Judge Santiago granting him probation dated 18 June 1993. Since
then, Mr. Argosino has filed three (3) Motions for Early Resolution of his
Petition for Admission to the Bar.
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 ofunbounded
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 at the conclusion thatthe highest degree of scrutiny
must be exercised as to the moral character of a candidate who presents himself
for admission to the bar. The
evil must, if possible, be successfully met at its very
source, and prevented,
for, after a lawyer has once been admitted, and has pursued his profession, and
has established himself therein, a far more difficult situation is presented to
the court when proceedings are instituted for disbarment and for the recalling
and annulment of his license.
In Re Keenan: 6
The right to practice law is
not one of the inherent rights of every citizen, as in
the right to carry on an ordinary trade or business. It is a peculiar privilege granted and
continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual
attainment and in moral character. All may aspire to it on an absolutely
equal basis, but not all will attain it. Elaborate machinery has been set up to
test applicants by standards fair to all and to separate the fit from the
unfit. Only those who pass the test are allowed to enter the profession, and
only those who maintain the standards are allowed to remain in it.
Re Rouss: 7
Membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions, and a fair private and professional
character is one of them; to refuse admission to an unworthy applicant is not
to punish him for past offense: an examination into character, like
the examination into learning, is
merely a test of fitness.
Cobb vs. Judge of Superior
Court: 8
Attorney's are licensed
because of their learning and ability, so that they may not only protect the
rights and interests of their clients, but be able to assist court in the trial
of the cause. Yet what protection to clients or assistance to courts could such
agents give? They are required
to be of good moral character, so
that the agents and officers of the court, which they are, may not bring discredit upon the
due administration of the law, and it
is of the highest possible consequence that both those who have not such
qualifications in the first instance, or who, having had them, have fallen
therefrom, shall not be
permitted to appear in courts to aid in the administration of justice.
It has also been stressed that the requirement of good moral
character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as the general public and
the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of
legal learning:
. . . (In re Applicants for
License, 55 S.E. 635, 143 N.C. 1, 10 L.R.A. [N.S.] 288, 10 Ann./Cas. 187):
The public policy of our state
has always been to admit no person to the practice of the law unless he covered
an upright moral character. The
possession of this by the attorney is more important, if anything, to the public and to the proper
administration of justice than legal learning. Legal learning may be
acquired in after years, but if
the applicant passes the threshold of the bar with a bad moral character the
chances are that his character will remain bad, and that he will become a disgrace
instead of an ornament to his great calling — a curse instead of a benefit to his
community — a Quirk, a Gammon
or a Snap, instead of a Davis, a Smith or a Ruffin. 9
All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired
into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. The scope of such
inquiry is, indeed, said to be properly broader than inquiry into the moral
proceedings for disbarment:
Re Stepsay: 10
The inquiry as to the moral
character of an attorney in a proceeding for his admission to practice is broader in scope than in a disbarment proceeding.
Re Wells: 11
. . . that an applicant's
contention that upon application for admission to the California Bar the court
cannot reject him for want of good moral character unless it appears that he
has been guilty of acts which would be cause for his disbarment or suspension,
could not be sustained; that
the inquiry is broader in its scope than that in a disbarment proceeding, and the court may receive any evidence which tends to show
the applicant's character as respects honesty, integrity, and general morality, and may no doubt refuse admission upon
proofs that might not establish his guilt of any of the acts declared to be
causes for disbarment.
The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by
those who would seek admission to the bar must of necessity be more stringent
than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public. There is
a very real need to prevent a general perception that entry into the legal
profession is open to individuals with inadequate moral qualifications. The
growth of such a perception would signal the progressive destruction of our
people's confidence in their courts of law and in our legal system as we know
it. 12
Mr. Argosino's participation in the deplorable
"hazing" activities certainly fell far short of the required standard
of good moral character. The deliberate (rather than merely accidental or
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 considerde 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.
CASE DIGEST
FACTS: This is a matter for admission to
the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al
Caparros Argosino was previously involved with hazing which caused the death of
Raul Camaligan a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites but
he was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He was
sentenced with 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment where he applied
a probation thereafter which was approved and granted by the court. He took the bar
exam and passed but was not allowed to take the oath. He filed
for a petition to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath of office and to admit
him to the practice of law averring that his probation was already terminated.
The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it
was terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the
lawyer’s oath office and admit him to the practice of law.
HELD: 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. The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good moral character
of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far
as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned.
Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that
he has reformed and has become a responsible member of the community through
sworn statements of individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who
have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify that
he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The
petitioner is then allowed to take the lawyer’s oath, sign the Roll of
Attorney’s and thereafter to practice the legal profession.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento