In re: Argosino, A.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995; B.M. No.

712 March 19, 1997

FACTS:

Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examination in 1993 but was not allowed to take his oath due
to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide when he and seven others caused
the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation. After a plea of guilty, the trial court sentenced them to
imprisonment, to which they applied for probation.

Petitioner filed a petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath based on the order of his discharge from
probation. The Court issued a resolution requiring petitioner to submit evidence that he now has complied
with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.

Argosino submitted fifteen certifications/letters and evidence that a scholarship foundation had been
established in honor of the hazing victim, Raul Camaligan through joint efforts of the latter's family and the
eight (8) accused in the criminal case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner complied with the requirement of good moral character to be admitted to the
bar.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special
educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.

Rule 138 Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides the requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar.
“Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-
one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the
Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving
moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.”

APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

In this case, Mr. Argosino's participation in the "hazing" activities certainly fell far short of the required
standard of good moral character.

However, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. The various
certifications he submitted and evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of the
hazing victim show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service. The
Court is persuaded that he has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, the petitioner complied with the requirement of good moral character to be admitted to the bar.
He was allowed to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession.