In re: Argonsino

DOCTRINE: 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. The essentiality of good moral character in those who would be lawyers is stressed. 

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. 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 character of a lawyer in proceedings for disbarment.

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. 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 character of a lawyer in proceedings for disbarment.

FACTS:

A criminal information was filed on 4 February 1992 with the RTC QC, charging Mr. A.C. Argosino along with 13 other individuals, with the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul Camaligan, which 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. Each of the 14 accused individuals was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years.

Mr. Argonsino and his colleagues filed an application for probation with the lower court. The application for probation was granted, which was set at 2 years, counted from the probationer’s initial report to the probation officer assigned to supervise him. 

Less than a month later, 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 and passed. He was not, however, allowed to take the lawyer’s oath of office.

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. We note that his probation period did not last for more than 10 months from the time of the Order of Judge Santiago granting him probation. Since then, Mr. Argosino has filed 3 Motions for Early Resolution of his Petition for Admission to the Bar.

ISSUE/S:

Whether Argonsino should be allowed to take the attorney’s oath and to admit him to the practice of law. (No ruling; Argonsino was asked to submit evidence)

HELD:

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. The essentiality of good moral character in those who would be lawyers is stressed.

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.

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 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.