Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of “reckless imprudence resulting in homicide” from a hazing incident. Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the others who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of their hazing victim.
Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice law.
YES. Petition granted.
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the required good moral character as required before taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyer’s Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice of law, and that the community assistance he had started is expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate members of the society.