In the Matter of the Admission to the Bar and Oath-Taking of Successful Bar Applicant Al C. Argosino

Good moral character is a continuing requirement for admission to the Philippine bar, and a prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude or serious ethical lapses creates a presumption of deficiency that the applicant must overcome with affirmative evidence of reformation.

Al C. Argosino was one of fourteen individuals charged with homicide for the death of Raul Camaligan, which resulted from severe physical injuries inflicted during fraternity hazing rites on September 8, 1991. Argosino and his co-accused pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence. On February 11, 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City sentenced each accused to imprisonment ranging from two years, four months, and one day to four years. Argosino subsequently applied for and was granted probation for a period of two years.

• Nature of the Action: This is an original bar matter concerning the application of Al C. Argosino, a successful bar examinee, to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law.
• The Hazing Incident and Conviction: On September 8, 1991, Raul Camaligan died from severe physical injuries inflicted during fraternity initiation rites ("hazing"). Argosino and thirteen others were charged with homicide. They later pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence. The RTC convicted them on February 11, 1993.
• Probation and Bar Exam Application: Argosino applied for and was granted probation. While on probation, he applied to take the 1993 Bar Examinations, disclosing his status. The Supreme Court allowed him to take the exam, which he passed.
• Petition for Admission: After his probation was terminated early, Argosino petitioned the Court to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. The Court noted his probation had lasted less than ten months.

• Completion of Sentence/Probation: Petitioner Argosino argued that he had fully complied with the sentence imposed by the trial court, as his probation had been terminated by order of the judge. This, he implied, should satisfy the requirements for admission.
• Prior Permission to Take Bar Exams: Petitioner's act of being allowed to sit for the bar examinations, after disclosing his conviction, could be construed as an implicit initial clearance on the moral character issue.

N/A (This is an original bar matter initiated by the petitioner; there was no opposing party named as "respondent." The Court acted on its own inherent and constitutional power to regulate the bar.)

• Moral Character Requirement: Whether a prior conviction for homicide through reckless imprudence arising from fatal hazing disqualifies an applicant from admission to the bar for lack of good moral character.
• Continuing Qualification: Whether the requirement of good moral character must be satisfied not only at the time of taking the bar exams but also at the time of admission to the bar.

• Moral Character Requirement: The conviction created a serious question regarding the applicant's moral character. Participation in the "prolonged and mindless physical beatings" that caused death constituted a "deliberate" act showing "serious character flaws" and an "evident rejection" of the moral duty to protect another's life. This falls far short of the high standard of good moral character required of lawyers.
• Continuing Qualification: Good moral character is a continuing requirement that must be possessed at the time of application for permission to take the bar examinations and, more importantly, at the time of application for admission to the bar and oath-taking. The Court must assess the applicant's moral fitness de novo at the later stage.

• Good Moral Character as a Continuing Requirement for Bar Admission — The practice of law is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character. This is not a one-time qualification but a continuing requirement. An applicant must demonstrate they possess this character at multiple stages: when seeking to take the bar exams and, critically, when seeking admission to the bar itself. A serious ethical lapse or criminal conviction creates a presumption of deficiency that the applicant must overcome with affirmative evidence of reformation and present moral fitness.
• Inherent Power of the Court to Regulate the Bar — The Supreme Court's power to admit applicants to the practice of law is an inherent judicial function. This includes the authority to conduct a broad inquiry into an applicant's moral character, an inquiry that is broader in scope than that in a disbarment proceeding. The Court's duty is to protect the public and the administration of justice by ensuring only those who are morally fit enter the profession.

• "The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified."
• "The possession of this [good moral character] by the attorney is more important, if anything, to the public and to the proper administration of justice than legal learning."
• "The deliberate (rather than merely accidental or inadvertent) infliction of severe physical injuries which proximately led to the death of the unfortunate Raul Camaligan, certainly indicated serious character flaws on the part of those who inflicted such injuries."
• "Mr. Argosino must, in other words, submit relevant evidence to show that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to the ancient and learned profession of the law."

• In Re Farmer, 131 S.E. 661 (1926) — Cited for its persuasive definition of "upright character" as something more than the absence of bad character, involving the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right.
• In Re Application of Kaufman, 69 Idaho 297, 206 P.2d 528 (1949) — Cited for the principle that the highest degree of scrutiny must be exercised as to the moral character of a bar candidate to prevent unfit individuals from entering the profession.
• In Re Keenan, 314 Mass 544, 50 N.E.2d 785 (1943) — Cited for the principle that the right to practice law is a peculiar privilege granted only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and moral character.
• Re Stepsay, 15 Cal. 2d 71, 98 P.2d 489 (1940) and Re Wells, 174 Cal. 467, 163 P. 657 (1917) — Cited for the rule that the inquiry into moral character for bar admission is broader in scope than in a disbarment proceeding.
• Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378 (1993) — Cited generally for the discussion on the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal system.

• Rule 138, Section 2 of the Rules of Court (Implicitly applied) — Provides that the Supreme Court shall have the exclusive power to admit applicants to the practice of law, requiring, among others, that the applicant be a citizen of good moral character.

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Hilario G. Davide Jr., Flerida Ruth P. Romero, and Jose C. Melo concur. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo was on leave.

N/A (No dissenting opinion was noted in the resolution.)