View full case

IN MATTER OF ADMISSION TO BAR

FACTS:

A criminal information was filed against Mr. A.C. Argosino and thirteen other individuals for the crime of homicide in connection with the death of Raul Camaligan. The death occurred during a fraternity initiation hazing where severe physical injuries were inflicted on Camaligan. Argosino and his co-accused entered into plea bargaining and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence. The trial court accepted their plea and sentenced each of them to imprisonment ranging from two years, four months, and one day to four years.

Eleven days after the judgment, Argosino and his colleagues applied for probation, which was granted by the trial court. The probation period was set at two years from the probationer's initial report to the assigned probation officer.

Less than a month later, Argosino filed a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations, disclosing his criminal conviction and probation status. He was allowed to take the bar exams but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.

Argosino then filed a petition with the Supreme Court to allow him to take the attorney's oath of office and admit him to the practice of law, claiming that his probation period had been terminated by an order from the trial court. His probation period lasted for less than ten months.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the attorney's oath of office and be admitted to the practice of law despite his criminal conviction and probation status.

  2. Whether or not the termination of Mr. Argosino's probation period by virtue of an Order dated 11 April 1994 would be sufficient grounds for him to be admitted to the practice of law.

RULING:

  1. No. The Supreme Court denied Mr. Argosino's petition to take the attorney's oath of office and be admitted to the practice of law. The Court held that the practice of law is not a natural, absolute, or constitutional right. It is a high personal privilege that is limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications. Mr. Argosino's criminal conviction and his involvement in hazing activities cast doubt on his good moral character, which is an essential requirement for admission to the practice of law.

  2. No. The termination of Mr. Argosino's probation period is insufficient to warrant his admission to the practice of law. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of good moral character in those who would be lawyers. The probation period alone does not automatically restore an individual's good moral character. Mr. Argosino should have demonstrated a sustained reformation and the re-acquisition of good moral character over a significant period of time.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications. It is not a natural, absolute, or constitutional right.

  • Good moral character is an essential requirement for admission to the practice of law. It includes conduct that shows an upright character, willingness to do what is right even if it is unpleasant, and refraining from doing what is wrong even if it is pleasant.

  • The highest degree of scrutiny must be exercised in examining the moral character of candidates for admission to the bar to prevent misconduct and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

  • The termination of an individual's probation period does not automatically restore their good moral character and does not serve as sufficient grounds for admission to the practice of law.