Rehabilitation and Moral Fitness: Can Past Transgressions Bar You From Practicing Law?

BAR MATTER No. 712, March 19, 1997

The legal profession demands not only intellectual prowess but also impeccable moral character. But what happens when an aspiring lawyer has a past transgression? Can they overcome this hurdle and be admitted to the bar? This case explores the complexities of assessing moral fitness and the possibility of rehabilitation for those seeking to join the legal profession. It highlights that while past actions are considered, the court also values remorse, atonement, and demonstrated commitment to ethical conduct.

The Weight of the Past: Moral Character in Legal Admission

In the Philippines, admission to the bar is not merely about passing the bar exams. It requires demonstrating good moral character, a standard enshrined in the Rules of Court. Rule 138, Section 2 states that “Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines”. This requirement is intended to ensure that those who wield the power of the law are individuals of integrity and sound ethical judgment.

The concept of “good moral character” is broad and often assessed on a case-by-case basis. It encompasses honesty, fairness, respect for the law, and a commitment to ethical conduct. A criminal conviction, particularly for a serious offense, can raise significant concerns about an applicant’s moral fitness. However, the Supreme Court recognizes that people can change, and past mistakes do not necessarily disqualify someone from practicing law forever.

For example, imagine a student convicted of theft in college. Years later, after earning a law degree, the student applies to the bar. The court will consider the nature of the offense, the circumstances surrounding it, the applicant’s subsequent conduct, and evidence of rehabilitation in determining whether the applicant now possesses the requisite moral character.

The Argosino Case: A Second Chance?

This case revolves around Al Caparros Argosino, who passed the bar examinations in 1993. However, his oath-taking was deferred due to a prior conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. The conviction stemmed from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites in 1991. Argosino and seven others initially pleaded not guilty but later changed their pleas to guilty of the lesser offense.

The trial court sentenced Argosino to imprisonment, but he was later granted probation. After successfully completing his probation, Argosino petitioned the Supreme Court to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

• Argosino passed the bar but was initially barred due to the criminal conviction.
• He submitted evidence of rehabilitation, including certifications from respected figures.
• The father of the victim, Atty. Camaligan, expressed forgiveness but remained uncertain about Argosino’s moral fitness.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the gravity of Argosino’s past actions but also considered evidence of his remorse, efforts to atone for his actions, and the support he received from various individuals. The Court also noted Atty. Camaligan’s forgiveness, despite his understandable pain and reservations. In its deliberation, the Court stated:

“x x x 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.”

However, it also noted that it was prepared to consider de novo whether the petitioner had purged himself of the deficiency in moral character.

Ultimately, the Court allowed Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys, and practice law, subject to a stern admonition. The Court emphasized that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere formality but a solemn promise that should guide a lawyer’s conduct at all times.

“In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber…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…”

Practical Implications and Lessons Learned

This case underscores the importance of moral character in the legal profession and offers hope for individuals who have made mistakes in the past. It demonstrates that rehabilitation is possible and that the Supreme Court is willing to consider evidence of remorse, atonement, and a commitment to ethical conduct.

Imagine a paralegal with a prior conviction for a minor drug offense. After years of working diligently, earning a law degree, and demonstrating a commitment to community service, the paralegal applies to the bar. This case suggests that the paralegal’s past offense would not automatically disqualify them, and the Court would consider their subsequent rehabilitation and contributions to society.

Key Lessons:

• Past mistakes do not automatically disqualify someone from practicing law.
• Evidence of remorse, atonement, and rehabilitation is crucial.
• The Supreme Court assesses moral character on a case-by-case basis.
• The lawyer’s oath is a solemn promise that should guide a lawyer’s conduct.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is considered “good moral character” for admission to the bar?

A: Good moral character encompasses honesty, fairness, respect for the law, and a commitment to ethical conduct. It is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Q: Can a criminal conviction prevent someone from becoming a lawyer?

A: A criminal conviction can raise concerns about an applicant’s moral fitness, but it does not automatically disqualify them. The Court considers the nature of the offense, the circumstances surrounding it, the applicant’s subsequent conduct, and evidence of rehabilitation.

Q: What evidence can be presented to demonstrate rehabilitation?

A: Evidence of rehabilitation can include certifications from respected figures, community service, academic achievements, and a demonstrated commitment to ethical conduct.

Q: How does the Court weigh the victim’s forgiveness in these cases?

A: The Court considers the victim’s forgiveness as a positive factor, but it is not determinative. The Court still assesses the applicant’s overall moral fitness based on all available evidence.

Q: What is the significance of the lawyer’s oath?

A: The lawyer’s oath is a solemn promise that should guide a lawyer’s conduct at all times. It is a reminder of the ethical obligations and responsibilities that come with practicing law.

Q: What happens if a lawyer violates the lawyer’s oath?

A: Violation of the lawyer’s oath can result in disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment.

ASG Law specializes in legal ethics and professional responsibility. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.