In Re Argosino (1997)

Doctrine:

Facts:

1. The SC deferred Argosino’s oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
2. Trial court granted his application for probation and a year later, discharged from probation
as recommended by the Probation Officer
3. SC Justice Feliciano required him to submit evidence of complying with the requirement of
Good Moral Character and submitted fifteen (15) certifications/letters. He also mentioned
that a foundation was established in honor of the hazing victim (Raul Camaligan) thru the
accused efforts.
4. Father of the victim Atty. Camaligan forgave Argosino but admits he cannot say that the
latter is morally fit to be a lawyer.

Issue: Whether the Court will allow Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath

Ruling:

YES. SC resolved to allow Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath and recognizes that he is not inherently of
bad moral fiber, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of the youth to be rash, temerarious, and
uncalculating.
In Re Argosino (1995)

Facts:

1. Mr. Al Argosino was involved in a crime of homicide with thirteen (13) others with the death
of Raul Camaligan on Sept. 8, 1991 due to severe physical injuries obtained in hazing. The
name of the fraternity is Lex Talionis Fraternitas.
2. The accused entered into a plea bargaining and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of
homicide thru reckless imprudence and was accepted by the trial court.
3. In Feb. 1993, they are sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 2-4 years. Eleven (11) days later,
they filed application for probation and was granted, set at two (2) years.
4. Less than a month later, he petitioned to take the 1993 Bar Exams and disclosed of his
conviction and probation status. The SC En Banc passed a resolution to allow him to take the
exam. He passed but was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
5. In 1994, Argosino filed to SC to allow him to take the oath averring that Judge Santiago
terminated his probation period that only lasted ten (10) months.

Issue: Whether Argosino shall be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath

Ruling:

NO, he must first submit evidence that he may be now regarded as complying with the
requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar. The Court
stress that good moral character is a requirement possession of which must be demonstrated not only
at the time of application for permission to take the bar examinations but also, and more importantly,
at-the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney’s oath of office.
Avida Land v. Argosino

Facts:

1. Avida Land is engaged in the development and sale of subdivision house and lots.
Argosino was counsel for Rodman construction (Rodman). Avida entered into a
Contract to Sell with Rodman, under which the latter was to acquire from the
former a subdivision house and lot through bank financing.
2. Avida demanded payment of Rodman’s outstanding balance of more than Php 3
million. They agreed that it be paid within 18 months.
3. Avida did not receive the exact amount and demanded Rodman to vacate the
property. Rodman held the property and Avida filed unlawful detainer.
4. HLURB arbiter ordered Rodman to pay. HLURB Board modified arbiter’s decision
and required it to pay immediately and compensation for use of property for 1% of
contract price per month.
5. Argosino filed Inhibition for Arbiter Aquino for bias and another Inhibition for
Arbiter Foronda for violation of due process of re-raffling.
6. Avida filed Admin case vs Argosino for alleged professional misconduct and violation
of lawyer’s oath. Argosino contended that it was the fault of Avida’s counsel for his
legal blunders.
7. IBP in its report found Argosino to be guilty of professional misconduct

Issue: Whether SC finds Argosino to be guilty of professional misconduct

Ruling:

YES. Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the HLURB case, the path towards its resolution
became long, tedious, and frustrating because of the deliberate attempts of respondent to delay the
actual execution of the judgment therein. He continued to file pleadings over issues already passed
upon even after being enjoined not to do so, and made unfounded accusations of bias or procedural
defects. These acts manifest his propensity to disregard the authority of a tribunal and abuse court
processes, to the detriment of the administration of justice.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are required to exert every effort and consider it
their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The Code also obliges lawyers to
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of their client.

Respondent cannot hide behind the pretense of advocating his client’s cause to escape liability for his
actions that delayed and frustrated the administration of justice.

Further, respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath by disobeying the legal orders of a duly constituted
authority, and disregarding his sworn duty to, delay no man for money or malice.