Argosino, In the Matter of
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A criminal information was filed charging Al C. Argosino and thirteen others with homicide in connection with the death of Raul Camaligan, who died from severe physical injuries inflicted during fraternity initiation rites or "hazing." Argosino and his co-accused pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence and were sentenced to imprisonment. Procedural History: Argosino and his colleagues applied for probation, which was granted. Subsequently, Argosino filed a petition to be allowed to take the 1993 Bar Examinations, disclosing his conviction and probation status. He was allowed to take the examinations and passed. He later filed a petition to take the attorney's oath of office after his probation was terminated. The Petition: Argosino sought admission to the practice of law, averring that his probation had been terminated. The Court noted that his probation period was less than ten months. The Court also noted that his permission to take the bar examinations was granted despite his conviction and probation, with an indication that clerical error might have attended the grant.
Issue(s)
Whether Al C. Argosino possesses the requisite good moral character for admission to the bar, considering his conviction for homicide through reckless imprudence arising from his participation in hazing. Whether the termination of his probation is sufficient to purge him of the deficiency in moral character.
Ruling
The Court deferred ruling on Argosino's admission to the bar and taking of the attorney's oath. It directed Argosino to submit evidence demonstrating that he now possesses the required good moral character, including sworn certifications from responsible members of the community and evidence of his efforts to make amends for the death of Raul Camaligan. The Court also directed Argosino to provide the names and addresses of the parents or siblings of Raul Camaligan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of good moral character and admission to the bar: The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and is granted only to citizens of good moral character. The Court cited numerous cases and legal authorities stressing the importance of "upright character" and the high degree of scrutiny required for bar applicants. It stated that participation in "hazing" activities, which led to severe physical injuries and the death of Raul Camaligan, demonstrated serious character flaws and a failure to discharge moral duties, thus making it impossible to find that Argosino possessed good moral character at the time of the incident. The Court reiterated that the inquiry into the moral character of an applicant is broader in scope than in a disbarment proceeding. On the sufficiency of probation termination to purge deficiency in moral character: The Court acknowledged that Argosino's probation period had expired. However, it stated that it was prepared to consider de novo whether he had purged himself of the deficiency in moral character. The Court stressed that good moral character must be demonstrated not only at the time of application 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. Therefore, the mere expiration of probation was not automatically deemed sufficient to establish the required moral fitness.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a privilege conditioned upon the possession of good moral character, which must be demonstrated not only at the time of application to take the bar examinations but also at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney's oath of office. Participation in acts like hazing that result in severe physical injuries or death demonstrates a deficiency in moral character that may bar admission to the legal profession.