In Re: Al C.

Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)

FACTS:

On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged with the
crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul Camaligan. The
death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries
uponhim in course of "hazing" conducted as part of the university fraternity
initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the accused were consequently
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from two (2) years, four
(4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino
and his colleagues filed an application for probation with the lower court. The
application was granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at
two (2) years, counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation
officer assigned to supervise him. Less than a month later, Argosino filed a
petition to take the bar exam. He was allowed and he passed the exam, but
was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.On April 15, 1994, Argosino
filed a petition to allow him to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the
practice of law. He averred that his probation period had been terminated. It
is noted that his probation period did not last for more than 10 months.

ISSUE:

Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of attorney and be

admitted to the practice of law

HELD:

Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now be regarded
as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon
those who are seeking admission to the bar. He should show to the Court how
he has tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student to the
family of the deceased student and to the community at large. In short, he
mustshow evidence that he is a different person now, that he has become
morally fitfor admission to the profession of law.
He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written
manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers and sisters of
Camaligan from notice.

NOTES:
 The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of
goodmoral character, with special education qualifications, duly ascertained
and certified.
 Requirement of good moral character is of greater importance so far as the
general public and proper administration of justice is concerned.
 All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect
of those seeking admission to the Bar.
 Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who
wouldseek admission to the bar must be a necessity more stringent than the
norm of conduct expected from members of the general public.
 Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Raul
Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and was totally
irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant
was possessed of good moral character.
 Good moral character is a requirement possession of which must be
demonstrated at the time of the application for permission to take the bar
examinations and more importantly at the time of application for admission to
the bar and to take the attorney's oath of office.

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING IN THE

2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE
SHARI’A BAR,

ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner,

B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004

Facts:
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a
Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.

In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations
that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City,
namely: Criminal Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687
for Less Serious Physical Injuries.

The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May 21, 2001, when Meling allegedly
uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people. Meling
also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.

Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached to the
Petition is an indorsement letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and appears on its face to have
been received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27, 2001.

Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December 3, 2002, Meling filed his Answer with the OBC.

In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed against him by Melendrez because
retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with
Melendrez. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral ascendancy
over them, he being their former professor in the College of Law, Meling considered the three cases that actually
arose from a single incident and involving the same parties as “closed and terminated.” Moreover, Meling denies
the charges and adds that the acts complained of do not involve moral turpitude.

As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications really contained the
word “Attorney” as they were, according to him, typed by the office clerk.

In its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003, the OBC disposed of the charge of non-disclosure
against Meling in this wise:

The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his petition to take the Bar
Examinations are ludicrous. He should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss
cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still pending.
Furthermore, granting arguendo that these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the
same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character. Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under
oath, and should not be taken lightly by an applicant.

Issue: WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is proper and shall subsequently
barred him from taking his lawyer’s oath and signing on the Roll of Attorneys
Held:

The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Accordingly, the membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a
Bar is hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar
as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys
as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic.

Rationale:

Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a matter of right but merely a privilege
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral
character. The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.

The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of good
moral character of the applicant. The nature of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the
Court in determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the
existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be
unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
Case Digest: People vs. Villanueva; 14 SCRA 109 (1965)

FACTS:

On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio Villanueva with
the crime of Malicious Mischief, before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. Said
accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte. The
complainant in the same case was represented by City AttorneyAriston Fule of San Pablo City, having
entered his appearance as private-prosecutor, after securing the permission of the Secretary of
Justice. The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he would appear at the trial of
the case, he would be considered on official leave of absence, and that he would not receive any
payment for his services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was questioned
by the counsel for the accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the isolated appearance of Atty. Fule as private prosecutor constitutes practice of law.

RULING:

No. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of
the offended party. It does not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his appearance
was in a professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of Sail Pablo he had no control or
intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos,
Laguna, because the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the Office
of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the City Attorney of San Pablo. As such, there could be no possible
conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule us Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as
private prosecutor in this criminal case. Furthermore, the isolated appearance of City
Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules.
Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to
fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one's self
out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. Thus, the appearance as
counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of
law. And, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his
immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complaint in the case at bar who is a
relative. Decision affirmed.