Title
IN RE: Admission to the Bar and Oath-Taking of Successful Bar Applicant Argosino
Case
B.M. No. 712
Decision Date
Jul 13, 1995
Al C. Argosino, convicted in a fatal hazing incident, sought Bar admission. The Supreme Court denied immediate admission, citing lack of good moral character but allowed future proof of rehabilitation.
good moral character
criminal law
plea bargaining
A

Case Summary (B.M. No. 712)

Key Dates

Criminal incident: September 8, 1991 (death of Raul Camaligan). Criminal information filed: February 4, 1992. Trial court judgment convicting petitioner and thirteen co-accused: February 11, 1993. Probation granted by RTC: June 18, 1993 (period set at two years). Application to take 1993 Bar Examinations filed: July 13, 1993. En banc resolution allowing petitioner to take the 1993 bar: August 14 (or 24), 1993 (administrative note of possible clerical error in recording). Petition to be allowed to take the attorney’s oath filed: April 15, 1994 (petitioner averred probation terminated by RTC order of April 11, 1994). Supreme Court resolution: July 13, 1995. (Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution is the constitutional framework applicable to the Court’s consideration.)

Procedural Posture and Facts

A criminal information charged the petitioner, together with thirteen others, with homicide in connection with the death of a neophyte, Raul Camaligan, allegedly resulting from severe physical injuries inflicted during a fraternity hazing. The accused entered into plea bargaining with the prosecution and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence; the trial court accepted the plea and imposed confinement ranging from two years, four months and one day to four years on each accused. The convicts subsequently applied for and were granted probation by the trial court; the probation term was set at two years to run from the probationer’s initial report to a probation officer. While on probation, petitioner sought and was permitted to sit for the 1993 Bar Examinations; he passed but was not allowed to take the oath. He later petitioned the Court to permit his oath-taking, asserting that his probation had been terminated.

Legal Framework Applied

Because the resolution was rendered in 1995, the Court proceeded under the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the controlling constitutional framework. The resolution reiterates the established principle that the practice of law is a special privilege, not an absolute right. Admission to the bar is conditioned upon, among other requisites, the applicant’s demonstration of good moral character. The Court relied on longstanding authority (including several cited foreign precedents and Philippine authorities) to state that the inquiry into moral character for bar admission is wide in scope, more exacting than disbarment inquiries, and essential to protect the administration of justice and public confidence in the legal profession.

Standard and Scope of Inquiry on Moral Character

The Court emphasized that “good moral character” is an essential qualification, requiring not merely absence of proven wrongdoing but positive evidence of upright character. The Court quoted and relied upon precedents which articulate that the moral character requirement is a test of fitness to be entrusted with the duties of counsel and officer of the court. The scope of inquiry may include any evidence tending to show the applicant’s honesty, integrity, and general morality, and may justify refusal of admission even where the evidence would not suffice for disbarment proceedings. The Court also noted the public interest in preventing a perception that the bar admits persons with inadequate moral qualifications.

Court’s Assessment of Petitioner’s Conduct

The Court found that petitioner’s participation in the prolonged and severe physical beatings during fraternity hazing, which proximately led to the death of Raul Camaligan, fell far short of the moral standard required of bar applicants. The Court characterized the conduct as deliberate (not merely accidental), reflecting serious character flaws and a failure to discharge the moral duty to protect the life and well-being of a neophyte who had reposed trust in his fraternit ymates. Such participation was deemed totally irresponsible and incompatible with a finding of present good moral character.

Opportunity for Reassessment and Burden on Petitioner

Having noted that the probation period originally granted has since expired, the Court announced its willingness to consider de novo whether petitioner has since purged the moral deficiency. The Court underscored that demonstration of good moral character is required both at the time of application to take the bar and—more importantly—at the time of application for admission and oath-taking. The petitioner was directed to submi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms