Bm 810; (January 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 810 January 27, 1998
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR.
FACTS
Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. His oath-taking was held in abeyance due to a previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. The conviction stemmed from his participation in the initiation rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity at the San Beda College of Law, in September 1991, which resulted in the death of neophyte Raul I. Camaligan. Petitioner applied for and was granted probation. He was discharged from probation on May 10, 1995, and his case was considered closed and terminated. In his petition to take the lawyer’s oath, he attached the court order discharging him from probation and various certifications attesting to his good character from local officials and community leaders. The Court required Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan, the father of the deceased victim, to comment. Atty. Camaligan expressed that he had forgiven the petitioner but, as a grieving father, could not forget the incident. He submitted the matter of the petitioner’s moral fitness to the Court’s discretion.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath and be admitted to the bar despite his previous conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude arising from a fatal hazing incident.
RULING
The Supreme Court resolved to ALLOW petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. to take the lawyer’s oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys. The Court balanced the reasons for disallowing and allowing his admission. While his deliberate participation in the hazing indicated an initial absence of the required moral fitness, the Court considered his subsequent rehabilitation. His discharge from probation without violation and the certifications attesting to his righteous and law-abiding character proved he had taken decisive steps to reform and atone for his actions. The Court also took judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash and uncalculating. Following its precedent in the similar case of Al Caparros Argosino (Bar Matter No. 712), the Court gave petitioner the benefit of the doubt. The Court exhorted him to conduct himself beyond reproach and strictly adhere to his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The oath-taking was subject to the payment of appropriate fees.