Argosino v. Supreme Court

Case Title and Citation

In the Matter of the Admission to the Bar and Oath-Taking of Successful Bar Applicant Al C. Argosino, petitioner.
B.M. No. 712, July 13, 1995
Supreme Court - EN BANC
Ponente: Justice Feliciano

---

Facts

• On 4 February 1992, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101, charged Al C. Argosino and thirteen (13) others with homicide in connection with the death of Raul Camaligan on 1991-09-08, arising from hazing during university fraternity initiation rites.
• As part of a plea bargaining, Argosino and his co-accused pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence; the trial court accepted the plea.
• By judgment dated 1993-02-11, each of the fourteen accused was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 2 years 4 months 1 day to 4 years.
• Eleven days later, on 1993-02-22, the accused filed applications for probation with the trial court; probation was granted on 1993-06-18 by RTC Judge Pedro T. Santiago, the probation period set at two years, counted from the probationer’s initial report to the probation officer.
• On 1993-07-13, Argosino filed a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations, disclosing the conviction and probation status; he was allowed to take the 1993 Bar Examinations as per En Banc Resolution dated 1993-08-14, and he passed the Bar Examination.
• He was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath of office at that time.
• On 1994-04-15, Argosino filed a Petition with this Court to allow him to take the attorney’s oath and to admit him to the practice of law, contending that Judge Santiago had terminated his probation by an Order dated 1994-04-11. The probation period did not last longer than ten months from the date of the order granting probation (1993-06-18).
• He filed three Motions for Early Resolution of his Petition for Admission to the Bar.
• The Court underscored that the practice of law is a privilege, not an inherent right, and that good moral character is essential for admission. It cited authorities emphasizing that admission to the bar requires a high moral standard and that a lawyer is a sworn officer of the court entrusted with justice.
• The Court concluded Argosino’s participation in hazing demonstrated serious character flaws, indicating a failure to discharge the moral duty to protect a prospective neophyte; this precludes a finding of good moral character.
• With the original probation period expired, the Court stated it would consider de novo whether Argosino has purged himself of the evident moral deficiencies.
• The Court emphasized that good moral character must be demonstrated not only at the time of application for the bar examinations but also at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the oath.
• Argosino was directed to submit evidence, including sworn certifications from reputable community members known to him for a significant period, showing he has become morally fit to practice law; he was also instructed to inform the Court of the names and addresses of Raul Camaligan’s father and mother (or siblings if applicable) within ten days from notice.

---

Issues

1. May Argosino be admitted to the practice of law given his conviction and probation?
2. Has Argosino purged himself of the deficiency in moral character since the judgment and probation?
3. Is de novo evaluation of Argosino’s moral character proper after the expiration of his probation?

---

Ruling

1. No — Admission cannot be granted at this stage based on past conviction and probation; the Court will evaluate current moral character through de novo review upon submission of evidence.
2. No — He has not yet demonstrated purge or reform; the Court requires evidence showing current good moral character.
3. Yes — The Court will conduct a de novo evaluation of his moral character upon submission of evidence of reform.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• The practice of law is a privilege that hinges on good moral character; it is not a guaranteed right and requires rigorous scrutiny of character.
• The Court cited authorities emphasizing that the moral character standard for admission is broader and more stringent than that applied to the general public, and that it is essential to protect public confidence in the legal profession.
• Argosino’s participation in the fatal hazing reflects a serious lapse in moral character, suggesting an inability to meet the required standards for admission to the bar.
• Good moral character must be demonstrated at the time of initial bar admission and again at the time of oath, and the Court may demand evidence of reform and current fitness.
• The Court rejected the possibility of bypassing the moral character requirement based solely on past acts and stressed the need for ongoing evidence of reform, including credible testimonies from responsible members of the community.
• The Court also noted that if purification is possible, it must be evidenced through tangible changes in conduct since the offense, and success in the bar should reflect a transformed character.

Cited authorities referenced in the reasoning include: In Re Farmer; In Re Kaufman; In Re Keenan; In Re Rouss; Cobb v. Judge of Superior Court; In Re Wells; and related precedents on the scope and seriousness of the moral character inquiry for bar admission.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Good moral character is a prerequisite for admission to the bar and must be demonstrated at multiple critical junctures (application and oath).
• The right to practice law is a privilege, not an inherent right, and requires ongoing evidence of fitness.
• The inquiry into moral character is broader than disbarment, and a court may consider evidence of reform and character from the applicant’s entire history.
• Hazing that results in severe injury or death can demonstrate fundamental deficiencies in moral character sufficient to bar admission, absent clear evidence of reform.

---

Disposition

• The petition for admission to the bar and oath was not granted at this time.
• The Court directed Argosino to submit evidence of good moral character, including credible certifications and other relevant materials, to support a de novo evaluation.
• The Court will then determine, based on the evidence, whether Argosino meets the standards for admission and can take the attorney’s oath.
• The Court also required notice to Raul Camaligan’s parents (or siblings) and to inform the Court of their names and addresses within ten days.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were issued; the decision reflects the unanimous view of the justices concurring in the result, with Chief Justice Narvasa presiding and Justices Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Melo concurring. Justice Bellosillo was on leave.

---

Significance / Notes

• Reaffirms the high threshold for admission to the bar, particularly regarding moral character, following criminal conviction and probation.
• Establishes that the assessment of moral character is ongoing and may require de novo evaluation if the applicant shows evidence of reform.
• Demonstrates the Court’s emphasis on public trust in the legal profession and the necessity for lawyers to uphold upright moral standards, especially in light of serious wrongdoing such as hazing resulting in death.
• Sets a procedural pathway for applicants with past misconduct to seek admission: evidence of reform and current fitness, evaluated de novo after probation.