Facts: Al Caparros Argosino passed the Philippine Bar Examinations in 1993 but was initially denied the opportunity to take the Lawyer’s Oath due to a prior conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide related to the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites in September 1991. Argosino and seven co-accused initially pleaded not guilty but later admitted guilt under reduced charges, and were sentenced to imprisonment. Later, Argosino was granted probation which was successfully completed in April 1994, leading him to petition the Supreme Court to take the Lawyer’s Oath. The Court deferred its decision, requiring Argosino to demonstrate his moral fitness for admission to the Bar. Argosino submitted numerous certifications and evidence of his character reform, including the establishment of a scholarship foundation in honor of the hazing victim. The victim’s father, Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, though forgiving the petitioner, did not endorse Argosino’s moral fitness to practice law and delegated the decision to the Court.
Issues:
1. Whether Al Argosino possesses the required moral character to be admitted to the Philippine Bar.
2. Whether his actions post-conviction can be considered sufficient atonement to offset the deficiency in moral character due to his involvement in the death of the neophyte.
3. How to reconcile the need for high moral standards in the legal profession with the potential for rehabilitation and change.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing Argosino to take the Lawyer’s Oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys, and practice law. The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the hazing incident but was persuaded by the submissions that Argosino has since demonstrated moral rehabilitation, including involvement in civic duties and public service. It held that youthful indiscretion should not irrevocably bar an individual from the legal profession, provided there has been demonstrable atonement and reform.
Doctrine: This case reaffirms the notion that while the practice of law is a privilege requiring high moral standards, rehabilitation and subsequent demonstration of moral fitness can counterbalance past misdeeds. Good moral character is essential for admission to the Bar, yet the Court recognizes the potential for transformation and improvement in character.
Class Notes:
– The practice of law is a privilege contingent upon stringent moral and intellectual standards.
– Moral character is a prerequisite for admission to the Bar, with good moral character defined in relation to actions that reflect on legal and ethical standards.
– Rehabilitation and repentance can be taken into account when assessing an applicant’s current moral fitness.
– Cited statute: Article 3 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which stipulates that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
Historical Background: The context of the case is rooted in the notorious history of violent fraternity hazing practices in the Philippines, which have resulted in various injuries and deaths over the years. This issue has garnered significant social and legal attention, prompting legislation and judicial scrutiny concerning the moral implications of such activities. The Argosino case highlights the tension between traditional conceptions of morality within the legal profession and contemporary views on personal growth and redemption.
Leave a Reply