EN
BANC
RE:
PETITION OF AL
ARGOSINO
TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH
B. M. No. 712
March 19, 1997
R
E S O L U T I O N
PADILLA, J.:
Petitioner Al
Caparros Argosino passed the bar
examinations held in 1993. The Court, however, deferred his oath-taking
due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In
Homicide.
The criminal case which resulted in
petitioner's
conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternity
initiation
rites sometime in September 1991. Petitioner and seven [7] other
accused
initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The eight
[8]
accused later withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-arraignment, all
pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
On the basis of
such pleas, the trial court rendered
judgment dated 11 February 1993 imposing on each of the accused a
sentence
of imprisonment of from two [2] years four [4] months :and one [1] day
to four [4] years.cralaw:red
On 18 June 1993,
the trial court granted herein
petitioner's application for probation.cralaw:red
On 11 April 1994,
the trial court issued an order
approving a report dated 6 April 1994 submitted by the Probation
Officer
recommending petitioner's discharge from probation.cralaw:red
On 14 April 1994,
petitioner filed before this
Court a petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath based on the
order
of his discharge from probation.cralaw:red
On 13 July 1995,
the Court through then Senior
Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a resolution requiring
petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that he may
now
be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character
imposed
upon those seeking admission to the bar.cralaw:red
In compliance
with the above resolution, petitioner
submitted no less than fifteen [15] certifications/letters executed by,
among others, two [2] senators, five [5] trial court judges, and six
[6]
members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence
that
a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul
Camaligan,
the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latter's family and the
eight [8] accused in the criminal case.cralaw:red
On 26 September
1995, the Court required Atty.
Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on petitioner's prayer to
be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.cralaw:red
In his comment
dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan
states that:
[a] He still believes that the infliction
of
severe physical injuries which led to the death of his son was
deliberate
rather than accidental. The offense, therefore, was not only homicide
but
murder since the accused took advantage of the neophyte's helplessness
implying abuse of confidence, taking advantage of superior strength and
treachery.
[b] He consented to the accused's plea
of
guilt
to the lesser offense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide only
out of pity for the mothers of the accused and a pregnant wife of one
of
the accused who went to their house on Christmas day 1991 and Maundy
Thursday
1992, literally on their knees, crying and begging for forgiveness and
compassion. They also told him that the father of one of the accused
had
died of a heart attack upon learning of his son's involvement in the
incident.
[c] As a Christian, he has forgiven
petitioner
and his co-accused for the death of his son. However, as a loving
father
who had lost a son whom he had hoped would succeed him in his law
practice,
he still feels the pain of an untimely demise and the stigma of the
gruesome
manner of his death.
[d] He is not in a position to say
whether
petitioner
is now morally fit for admission to the bar. He, therefore, submits the
matter to the sound discretion of the Court.
The practice of
law is a privilege granted only to
those who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications
required
of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration
of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed out"
lawyers
who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also
of equal importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer's
oath,
thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent
years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
The resolution of
the issue before us required
weighing and re-weighing of the reasons for allowing or disallowing
petitioner's
admission to the practice of law. The senseless beatings inflicted upon
Raul Camaligan constituted evident absence of that moral fitness
required
for admission to the bar since they were totally irresponsible,
irrelevant
and uncalled for.cralaw:red
In the 13 July
1995 resolution in this case, We
stated:
Participation in the prolonged and
mindless
physical
behavior, [which] makes impossible a finding that the participant
[herein
petitioner] was then possessed of good moral character.[1]
In the same
resolution, however, We stated that the
Court is prepared to consider de novo the question of whether
petitioner
has purged himself of the obvious deficiency in moral character
referred
to above.
Before anything else, the Court understands
and
shares the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert Camaligan. The death of one's
child
is, for a parent, a most traumatic experience. The suffering becomes
even
more pronounced and profound in cases where the death is due to causes
other than natural or accidental but due to the reckless imprudence of
third parties. The feeling then becomes a struggle between grief and
anger
directed at the cause of death.
Atty. Camaligan's
statement before the Court manifesting
his having forgiven the accused is no less than praiseworthy and
commendable.
It is exceptional for a parent, given the circumstances in this case,
to
find room for forgiveness.cralaw:red
However, Atty.
Camaligan admits that he is still
not in a position to state if petitioner is now morally fit to be a
lawyer.cralaw:red
After a very
careful evaluation of this case,
We resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the
lawyer's
oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with
the following admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the
lawyer's
oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad
moral
fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a
devout
Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino
has
exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are
prepared
to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the
general
tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
We stress to
Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath
is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer
should
at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes
when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves
strictly
according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility,
the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and
easier
for everyone concerned.
The Court
sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will
continue with the assistance he has been giving to his community. As a
lawyer, he will now be in a better position to render legal and other
services
to the more unfortunate members of society.cralaw:red
PREMISES
CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino
is hereby allowed to take the lawyer's oath on a date to be set by the
Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to practice the
legal
profession.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco,
Hermosisima,
Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
________________________
Endnote [1]
Resolution, p. 8. | 
