TITLE: RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH

270 SCRA 26, Bar Matter No. 712 (1997)

FACTS:
 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 (Raul Camaligan) 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.
 On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's application for probation.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan states that 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not Petitioner is allowed to take the lawyer’s oath despite conviction of criminal case.

RULING:
YES. After a very careful evaluation of this case, the Supreme Court 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.
TITLE: WELLINGTON REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GAA, respondent
246 SCRA 64, A.M. No. 1048(1995)

FACTS:
 On March 30, 1971, at around 9:00 A.M, Wellington Reyes, a complainant, reported to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that he had been the victim of extortion by Atty. Gaa,
the respondent lawyer and a former Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, who was investigating a
complaint for estafa filed by complainant’s business rival.
 According to complainant, he had given respondent P500.00 on March 1, 1971 and a total of
P500.00 on three other occasions. He said that another "payoff" was scheduled at 11:00 A.M.
that day in respondent's office at the City Hall.
 An entrapment was set up by the NBI. Complainant furnished the NBI agents several peso
bills totaling P150.00 for marking. The paper bills were sent to the Forensic and Chemistry
Division of the NBI and subsequently returned to complainant for the use in the entrapment.
 The complainant went to respondent's office. When finally the complainant was able to see
the respondent, the complainant then handed to respondent the marked money which he
placed inside his right pocket. The NBI agents then apprehended respondent and brought
him to the NBI Forensic and Chemistry Division for examination. Respondent was thereafter
taken to the Office of the Anti-Organized Crime Division of the NBI where he was
photographed, fingerprinted and record checked.
 On the same date, the NBI recommended the prosecution of respondent for violation of
Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
 On April 13, 1971, the NBI recommended to the Secretary of Justice the filing of
administrative charges and the institution of disbarment proceedings against him.
 Aside from the aforementioned criminal complaint and the administrative case, two other
cases were earlier filed against respondent: namely, Administrative Case No. 10 for Grave
Misconduct filed by one Angel Alora on October 13, 1969, wherein respondent was found
guilty as charged and was recommended for suspension; and Administrative Case No. 10-A
filed by Fabiola Fajardo on April 26, 1970, which was pending resolution.
 In a resolution dated December 23, 1971, this Court resolved to refer the disbarment case to
the Solicitor General. However, upon the adoption of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of
Court, the case was transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and
disposition.
 On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas of the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not the respondent should be disbarred on the grounds of misconduct and
willful violation of lawyer’s oath.

RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court agree with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Wherefore, the respondent is DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll
of Attorneys.
In the case at bench, respondent was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of receiving the
marked money from complainant during the entrapment conducted by the NBI agents, which
resulted in his arrest and the subsequent filing of administrative and criminal cases against him.
In his defense, respondent merely denied the charge of extortion and retorted that the marked
money was planted by complainant.
It is settled that affirmative testimony is given greater weight than negative testimony
When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the
charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must
show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is
expected of him.
Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as
a member of the bar on such grounds.
The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public official,
which also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath imposes upon
every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his
obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary
action.